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: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

Non-cremation in Hinduism

I moved this section to this page (WT:HNB) because it is a discussion about Hinduism in general and not about this article. Thanks Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Cremation and other death rites should definitely be added to the "Practice" section. Jpatokal 14:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, since nobody else did, I went ahead and added it. As exceptions to cremation, the Japanese Wikipedia states "金が無い人、赤ん坊、妊婦、蛇に噛まれて", or "people with no money, babies, pregnant women and those bitten by snakes". True or false? Jpatokal 12:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Article size

I suggest that we should take efforts to reduce article size to around 40-45 Kb.--Indianstar 16:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely the article should be judged more on the quality of it's content than on it's size? Hinduism is such a vast subject to give an informative overview of. Is there a way to reduce the KB size without removing so much text? The old version which was counted as a featured article was here (I'm presuming the date is correct) for a comparison. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 20:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The page was 100Kb and it took five editors to try to reduce the article size and much as possible without removing valuable information. At the moment, the article lacks a fair bit of important information so it will be almost impossible to shorten the article to 40Kb. Gouranga, that old version, if we were to change back to it, will not be featured standard anymore. There are many problems with the old featured version, one of which is its emphasis on the astik philosophies. The standard of writing is also quite poor. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I too think it is not feasible to reduce this article down to 40-50K without loosing too much information. Indianstar may have arrived at the 45K number based on his experience editing the article on India (another huge topic) which is currently 43K and a Featured article ! That said, I think we should keep our goals reasonable, perhaps in the 65-70K neighborhood after inclusion of topics such as Tantra and the criticism section. Abecedare 07:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

broken reference

Reference/footnote #37 seems to be broken. I do not have much time right now to search history and get it back. It might be easier if someone knew the reference. EDITORS: PLEASE be careful before deleting a reference that has a refname attached to it. Make sure you do not orphan footnotes. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 21:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The ISBN quoted in the reference belongs to "A Popular Dictionary of Hinduism (Curzon Press 1994)" but I can't work out how to add this back into the current ref format. Any takers? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 10:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. I also added back another broken reference #96. Abecedare 05:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism

There is no discussion of Vaishnavism, Shaivism or Shaktism in the article. This basic information should be in the introduction. — goethean ॐ 18:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is in the denomination section, which does have the basic information. And as the section already mentions, for most Hindus denominations are a minor issue compared with other religions. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism were considered disticnt religions untill their merger in later centuries. But this article doesn't seem to highlight this at all. ([[3]]). It would be historically inaccurate not to mention this. Can any editor please explain the reason?Wiki San Roze ^talk 12:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki San Roze - you chose a very strange citation... mainly because it is a speculative and brief discussion of the ontological status of 'Hinduism' and 'Buddhism' in toto and does not mention Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism (VS&S for short). VS&S, by the way, were never really considered 'religions' until Judeo-Christian notions of what a religion ought to be came into the picture (single book, single set of doctrines, single God, single this, single that)... VS&S all rely on a common core of holy books, metaphysics, ethics, song tradition, with divergences when it comes to certain regional or sectarian specifics. You also fail to note that Shiva, for instance, is the necessary partner of Shakti, while Vaishnavs have a varied tradition which in some cases acknowledges Shiva as an equal or alternate viewpoint, or in others as a subordinate deity. Thus, the interwoven-ness of VS&S ineluctably point to the singularity of a tradition which people happen to call Hinduism, but would better be described as Vedism (faiths, philosophical complexes, practices, which all strictly or at least largely follow, and acknowledge their descent from, a Vedic tradition). --69.203.80.158 06:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I agree that it would be the faith. But we are using here the word Religion in English and what it means in English. I'm very sorry if it sounds like inciting religious debate. If need be I can show you more journal articles on this subject, personally I would not love to though. All I am expecting is a simple sentence or something clarifying this facet of Hinduism. Something like Some historians and scholars concider that Vaishnavism and Saivism were different religions in the past, but under contemporary Hinduism, these division are sects. Missing this would be an historical error in the subject. Thanks! Wiki San Roze ^talk 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

May I request an admistrator to make the changes specified above based on this Journal article provided there is no objection or concern raised. Thanks! Wiki San Roze ^talk 08:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Can the to following sentence over here: However, academics categorize contemporary Hinduism into four major denominations: Vaishnavism,Shaivism, Shaktism and Smartism. The denominations differ primarily in the God worshipped as the Supreme One and in the traditions that accompany worship of that God. The following be added: However, these denominations were considered to be separate religions before 14th century. ([4] [5]).

Provided no one has any objection to this statement. Sorry if I am wrong! Thanks Wiki San Roze ^talk 02:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to sourcing the article from web site abstracts such as this. We should be upgrading the source quality by relying more heavily on academic books. Aside from the problem with sourcing, the statement seems overbroad and seems to mis-state what Smarta worship involves. Buddhipriya 03:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry once again, since I realise that issues as this is indeed sensitive when it comes to faith that one holds so dear. But these are published journals. A full access would be possible with institutional network access. I am under an impression that journals hold higher credibility over books. I leave it to others to comment and decide on it. ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 03:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The citations are to a one-paragraph abstract of a journal article. Is this the strongest reference on the subject? Buddhipriya 03:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, full articles can be accessed as I mentioned if you have an institutional access through these links. Home internet usually doesn't alow full articles to be viewed unless you have a subscription. ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 03:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:EL: "Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers." Buddhipriya 04:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, you are right that linking to subscription sites as external links is usually to be avoided, since an average wikipedia user will not gain from that weblink. However, that guideline does not apply to using such sources as reliable content sources. Indeed, as a matter of course, we use "books" as sources while writing wikipedia articles and in order to access them an average reader will have to either spend money or pay a trip to the library.

As Wiki San Roze stated, academic articles in reputable peer reviewed journals would indeed qualify as reliable sources on wikipedia; and in some cases may be considered even better than books since the peer review process is (ideally) more adversarial and hence stricter than the editorial oversight that a book addressed to "commoners" may receive. That said, one needs to be careful when using "primary academic sources" on wikipedia since, (1) they can be hard to interpret correctly without having in depth knowledge of the topic and context and (2) a journal article may represent a novel view of a single author and not the academic consensus, which wikipedia usually aims to communicate. Therefore, we should use such sources with caution and try to look for "review articles" from prominent academics in the field, whenever possible.

Hope my on-the-one-hand / on-the-other-hand argument is decipherable. :-) Abecedare 05:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki San Roze, can you please specify how exactly the two articles that you linked to support the thesis that, "However, these denominations were considered to be separate religions before 14th century" by providing pertinent quotations? That will help us decide if and how the issue should be discussed in the Hinduism article.

I have browsed through the Comparative Studies in Society and History article (aside: it does make interesting reading!) and have not found any mention of Saivism, Vaishnavism, and Skatism as being "separate religions". Indeed that article refers to Saivism et al as "communities" on page 633; "sects" on page 637 and also quotes Monier-Williams, "About the division between Saivism and Vaishnavism, Monier-Williams insists (1993:97) that they 'are not opposite or incompatible creeds. They represent different lines of religious thought. . . quite allowable within the limits of one and the same system' ". The closest that the author gets to your stated point is on page 648, where he says:

"What I am suggesting here is that many modern scholars, especially those who work principally with Sanskrit sources, may have unconsciously absorbed some of the self-imposed cultural isolation of premodern Sanskrit literature and then concluded that there was no Hindu awareness of the Muslim Other. As a consequence, they may also have assumed that the Hindus had no clear contrastive awareness of their own religious identity.

Whatever the reason for the scholarly acceptance of the idea that there was no religious Hindu self-identity before 1800, the evidence against this view in vernacular Hindu literature is clear and abundant. The bulk of this evidence takes the form of texts composed by the popular religious poet-singers of North India, most of them members of non-Brahmin castes. This literature does precisely what Sanskrit literature refuses to do: it establishes a Hindu religious identity through a process of mutual self-definition with a contrasting Muslim Other. In practice, there can be no Hindu identity unless this is defined by contrast against such an Other. Without the Muslim (or some other non-Hindu), Hindus can only be Vaishnavas, Saivas, Smartas or the like. The presence of the Other is a necessary prerequisite for an active recognition of what the different Hindu sects and schools hold in common."

The above quote, IMO, is more an argument for existence of a "Hindu religious identity" before the term Hindu/Hinduism was coined (which by the way is the central thesis of the paper) in the 18th century, rather than an argument for Vaishanism, Saivism, Shaktism being distinct religions.

The "Social Anthropology" paper is not available to me online, but I can get it from the library if needed. It would save me a trip though :-), if you could instead provide fair-use extracts from the article that support the statement you propose to add. Thanks. Abecedare 05:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If a solid reference is found about the sects existing as "separate religions" before the 14th century, a sourced date will need to be added regarding when the denominations first emerged. From general knowledge, I believe the first person to recognise the different sects was Adi Shankara, who lived a few centuries before this anyway. On another note, if only a couple of reliable sources can be found, it may suggest it is not a very notable fact and is perhaps better to add in the Hindu denominations article, particularly when the information on this page is already quite excessive to put it mildly. Only the bare essentials should be presented here. If it is to be added, I prefer it being mentioned in the "History" section where a bit more context is provided. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the different sects are any more or less seperate now than they were 1000 years ago? It seems to be missing the point to infer that they "came together" at some stage in the 14th C? The philosophy and scriptural background (which unifies the groups more than anything else) is much more ancient than 14th C. Gouranga(UK) 17:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I had posted this question on 22nd May and got no replies. This article was part of a presentation by Prof Malkin and used it in the sense of VS&S. Anyways, I think Hindu identity issue is the right explanation. I appologise to have read it with prejudice. Thanks for the people who pointed me wrong. I think Hindu identity is an interesting topic for non-Hindus (am a humanist) like me to read. May be this article can mention about it, before more people get misled like me. Thanks! ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 19:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thailand Hinduism????

Article mentions Thailand as having high Hindu population! According to https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/th.html "Thailand — Religions: Buddhist 94.6%, Muslim 4.6%, Christian 0.7%, other 0.1% (2000 census)"

Jamesdowallen 06:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I was bold enough to remove it quickly. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Age of Hinduism ??

I would be leary of quoting from or referencing literature by non-indians or non-hindus as more often than not, such works smack of euro-centric bias. The overarching desire to claim some kind of link to origins of vedas and the VEDIC religion (I prefer the word vedic to hindu) as evidenced in advancement of the AIT. (No incontrovertible evidence has been produced to support the AIT, thats whole nother topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotyourPOV (talk • contribs) May 2, 2007 (UTC)

Article claims early date for Hinduism origin ("early Harappan"), but then cites cognates (e.g. "Zeus") in Indo-European religions as support! If one argues that early Indo-European religion can be called "Hinduism" then of course Hinduism is very old, but the connection with early Harappan is then contradictory (assuming a sane theory of Indo-European expansion.)

Jamesdowallen 06:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It does say "earliest elements of Hinduism" so obviously most of modern Hinduism did not exist back then according to mainstream views. I admit the second sentence in the paragraph is awkward though. In recognition of these ancient elements, it is claimed that Hinduism is the oldest surviving religion. What it should say is that it a modern religion where some aspects of it are older than every other major religion in the world. Btw, when I clicked the cites, it didn't point me to a Zeus note but to some books! Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job, so Gizza, you know more than hindus about who they are? Hindus consider Vedas to be their basic texts and Upanishads as commentaries on them. The Vedas are at least 1500BC old by even euro-centric western scholars (if not a few more hundred years old). This alone makes hinduism the oldest living religion. Why you are so troubled by this? Who told you it is a modern religion? Where do you leran such kind of things. Is wikipedia a place for propagandists in the garb of fake civility? Read German philosophers, there are dozens of them who can tell you how old hinduism is, don't go to schools of other religions like Islam or Christianity to learn more about hinduism. Nobody doubts the idea that hinduism is the oldest religion, except perhaps this discussion page of our wikipedia??

the sentence is misleading. "elements" of any religion you care to name are a million years old, because the basic configuration of human spirituality remain unchanged. The sentence isn't false, it's just entirely devoid of content. Your "earliest elements" are "a bath and phallic symbols". I suppose you could unearth those in practically every culture on earth. dab (𒁳) 18:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Some aspects of the Abrahamic and Dharmic religions derive from Pagan traditions while others come from the Proto-Indo-European religion. Bear in mind that the "phallus" is the most important symbol in the Shaivite sect and is still held with high regard among other Hindus. There is no major modern tradition that reveres the Divine Mother or the feminine side of God as much as the Shakti worshippers. However, the point on Hinduism being the oldest religion does need some fixing. I think the second sentence, which uses spurious logic anyway, can be removed without breaking the flow of the paragraph. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the second sentence. Like I said the flow hasn't been damged in any significant way from the removal. In a bloated article like this, it is better to remove dodgy claims altogether rather than "correct" them. Gizza^{Chat ©} 05:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, dab, the 'Pashupati' figure, depicting a meditating figure in cross-legged position, surrounded by animals, is very reasonably being studied as a possible forebear of Shiva. So it's not just baths and phallic symbols. --68.173.46.79 07:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Indus Valley as an Hindu civilization is a much larger claim. Since all references I found on the religion of Indus Valley says that no tangible evidence exists. I think we should keep religious emotions out of wikipedia, as well as original research. Thanks Wiki San Roze ^talk 12:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Cremation

Do we have any citations for this newly added section ? Most of the addition is fine in my opinion (although it can use a bit of a trim); however I wonder if seemingly exact prescriptions such as the exception for "children under five" are really universal. I personally doubt that you could get 10 independent Hindus to agree upon the exact age before which cremation is not obligatory - most likely the number just reflects a particular author's or sect's reading. If so we should mark it as such. Abecedare 18:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, would be happy with just a rationale for why young kids (and the rest) are exempt. The only one I've heard is that children young enough not to have sinned don't need to be released from them by cremation, but I can't cite anything more authoritative than a backpacker's travelogue for it. Jpatokal 10:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The most mainstream and well-attested rationale for cremation has nothing to do with sin, and your "backpacker's travelogue" citation is enough to show how good the reference is. Cremation primarily has to do with the idea that the body is a mere vestment, clothing for the migratory soul, which like all temporal things decays and ultimately diffuses back into the earth from whence it came (the Upanishads go on and on about how the body comes from the earth through food and water, sustains itself by way of the air, how the cycle of birth and death continues while the soul passes on through). Through the course of a life, people develop 'attachments' (which are neutral; while they might lead us back to earth, they are not sins). But the souls need to move on to the next plane or to the next bodies they'll inhabit; burning the body serves a twofold purpose: to allow the soul to move on and take care of its future karmas in fresh existences and to remind the living that body is only a temporary abode and, while important during one's life, shouldn't be needlessly clung to as if it were the whole truth and nothing but.

Hence, children of 5 and under and saints (like yogis or sanyasis) needn't be cremated. However, yogis are buried (typically in lotus posture) because their bodies have remained pure and represent pure sattwa on earth; preserving the body in the ground is often the beginning of a temple ground for devotees to come and meditate in (like with enshrined Cathlic relics). Children just haven't had enough time to accumulate attachments, but you could still cremate them. [my main point with all of this was really that it's not as much about sin as attachment, or maya, and this is a very crucial difference which is key to the difference between systems like Hinduism and Buddhism and Abrahamic faiths like Christianity and Islam]--69.203.80.158 08:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true that children under 5 are NOT cremated...but there is really nothing magical about the figure "5" .... The rationale is that the "UPANAYANA" or Sacred thread ceremony has NOT YET been performed on the "unfortunate" boy.... Once UPANAYANA ceremony has been done, cremation has to be done, REGARDLESS of age.... I know this for sure, but I really dont have any "proofs", you will have to either take my word or read further... The "Anthyeshti" is where requirements about cremation are listed in Hindu texts ... Neither do I have any information on the minimum equivalent criteria for "unfortunate" female kid/baby/girl.... ~~Kumar

The only purpose of cremation is to dispose off a dead body most efficiently and with dignity. The rituals are intended to help the departed soul on its onward journey. [Let Buddhipriya find citations.] Thanks.Kanchanamala 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lalu Yadav article

I moved this section to a better page for notifying Indians in general. WT:INB, which is the Indian noticeboard.

Help

DaGizza, I just ran into an edit conflict. Will you please make sure that I did not ruin this page?Kanchanamala 10:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. I didn't see you edit the main page or talk page. May you please tell me more specifically. I don't think you ruined any page. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gizza.Kanchanamala 23:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I have just (hopefully correctly) archived some of the stale discussions (inactive for more than a month or so) from this talk page into archive18. Hopefully this will spark new vigorous discussions to similarly improve the quality of this article. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 03:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good move, Saiva Sujit. I have learnt it the hard way that I should only say something which is directly related to improving an article. I'm glad the past is archived.Kanchanamala 06:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I believe this article is lacking a section on the (alleged) criticism of Hinduism (or its interpretation), including some topics on which frequent debate takes place such as the caste system, status of women, hindu zealots and ultra nationalists. I believe that the encyclopedic content and the neutrality of the article will improve if such a section is introduced. Do I have consensus to introduce this? Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If so it would have to be done very carefully and from an informed perspective. Articles already exist, such as Criticism of Hinduism, Indian caste system and Women in Hinduism. It might be better to simply have a short paragraph linking to these other articles? Any other viewpoints? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This article can/should have a criticism section similar to the ones in Islam, Christianity and Judaism. If someone wants to take the lead in writing one up, that would be great and I am sure that other editors will help with critical appraisal and suggestions.

However any such addition is likely to be controversial. So instead of potentially edit-warring on the main article page, it would be better to draft on in a subpage, till a reasonable consensus is reached on the exact contents and wording. Abecedare 00:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Their is no need to write a new section on criticism. If you dig enough through the archives, especially around the time the article used to be a FA, you will find a fairly well-written criticism section that you can almost copy and paste. However, it is likely to be eroded and become non-existant in few months as thats just the way things go sometimes in Wikipedia. I used to try and prevent it but the "other side" was lot more stubborn than me. --Blacksun 11:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Shruti and Smriti

While it is true that Smriti are non-Vedic in the sense that they do not include the Vedas, they are Vedic in the sense that (some of them) originated during the Vedic period, and they build upon/accept the authority of the Vedas. Since the adjective Vedic is almost always used in the latter sense (Vedic period, Vedic science, vedic mathematics, Vedic religion), I think, referring to Shrutis as non-Vedic may be inaccurate or at least confusing. However I may be wrong on this, so can others weigh in before making any changes in article-space ?
Also, the title "Many scriptures, many paths: attitude towards other beliefs" seems too long, especially for the Table of content. Any thoughts on alternate section title ? Abecedare 05:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How about post-Vedic? It therefore doesn't imply there are no Vedic influences in the Smriti. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that is accurate either, because (parts of) the Mahabharata (a smriti) were probably composed earlier than some of the Upanishads. As far as I understand the difference between Shruti and Smriti has more to do with the Shruti's primacy as a theological source, rather than the their chronological order of composition; not to mention that dating any of these is a minefield. Perhaps we can can simply title the sections Shruti and Smriti with the explanations left to the the following paragraphs and the main articles. Abecedare 06:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I cancelled vandalism on the article. TwoHorned 18:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence of the article: "Hinduism (Sanskrit: Sanātana Dharma सनातन धर्म "eternal law") is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent" contains a polemical entry in the form of a reference to some topics which are more related to politics than to Hinduism itself. TwoHorned 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

TwoHorned, I don't think that claim is controversial or disputed by mainstream sources (unlike the Aryan claim(s) ). AFAIK, the currently recognized form of Hinduism did develop on the Indian subcontinent. The only (minor) controversy I am aware of is on the question of whether Hinduism was a sole product of the Aryan population or if it contains aspects of the "indigenous" beliefs too.

PS: I have removed the three Guenon refs that you added because the Reference section lists only those books/article that were actually used in writing the article and are cited in Notes. Abecedare 18:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, The Vedas themselves claim the artic origin of the anciant rishis, be it symbolic or not...
• Removing these references is non sense. In any Wikipedia article, the references can point to pieces of work not cited in the article, but which shed some light on the subject itself. I put them back. TwoHorned 20:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the Wikipedia's Manula of Style (emphasis added), "Put under this header, again in a bulleted list, any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you used in constructing the article and have referenced (cited) in the article." I noticed that you are currently working on an article on René Guénon, which is great; however inserting her references indiscriminately is not desirable. Regards. Abecedare 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, then from Wikipedia's Manula of Style I can put them in a "further reading section". TwoHorned 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can. I don't plan to revert your good-faith edit but I do question the requirement for a further reading section in this article. I'll try to initiate a discussion on that general topic later to invite a broader input from editors. Regards. Abecedare 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism is an English word. There is no equivalent of it in Sanskrit. The word Sanatana Dharma is a modern coinage using two Sanskrit words, and some Hindus refer to their spiritual tradition(s) by that name. Hinduism includes all the spiritual traditions of India[n origin], though some Jainas, Bauddhas, Sikhs, and who knows who else, do not like to be called Hindus nor have their spiritual traditions known to be part of Hinduism. Thanks.Kanchanamala 05:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanatan Dharma is not modern in any way, it is still older than other religions. Dharma was the original word and later as the same word was used by Budhdhism/Jainism, they made it Sanatan Dharma. Still it is much older to call it modern. There is hardly anything about hinduism that can be called recent or modern.

I was questionning the second part of the sentence, not the first. TwoHorned 07:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Twohorned, I agree with you statement somewhat and also find the second part of the sentence fairly vague considering that it doesn't differentiate Hinduism from Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. The problem is however, can you think of a better opening sentence. We should think of a better opening sentence and only replace the old one when consensus has been established. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been further discussion on this topic on my talk page. It seems that TwoHorned's point is that Hinduism did not necessarily originate in the Indian subcontinent, but possibly originated in the Arctics. Abecedare 08:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

TwoHorned, I can't see why you find the second part of the opening sentence, highlighted by you at the top, objectionable. Your objection has baffled me. Anyway, as suggested by Gizza, let me proffer an opening sentence.

The term Hinduism comprises all the spiritual traditions that have originated in India, though some followers of Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and so forth, do not like their traditions to be considered as part of Hinduism.

What do you say guys? Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that, according to Hindu mythologic scriputres, and in particular the Vedas, the anciant Rishis were coming from outside the land known today as India, northern. OK, it's mythology, but, in an article about Hinduism, may be we can let the Vedic scriptures speak a little by themselves. I was just pointing that. Moreover, as you all knwo, the "oral" period, prior to Vyasa is undetermined in length. Moreover, all the disputes about "Hinduism rose inside India" (NAIT) is rooted in extremely modern political considerations, which are foreign to orthodox Hinduism. So may be can we try something like this:

Hinduism (Sanskrit: Sanātana Dharma सनातन धर्म "eternal law" ) refers to a spiritual tradition which, according to vedic scriptures, has its roots undetermined both in space and time. With its foundations in the Vedic civilization, it has no known founder, being itself a conglomerate of diverse beliefs and traditions. It is considered the world's "oldest extant religion," and has approximately a billion adherents, of whom about 890 million live in India, placing it as the world's third largest religion after Christianity and Islam. Other countries with large Hindu populations include Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia.

Just a proposition. Feel free to modify it as you like. TwoHorned 14:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the current version, since I think the phrasing "refers to a spiritual tradition which, according to vedic scriptures, has its roots undetermined both in space and time." creates obfuscation, where none is desired/required. I'll cut-n-paste discussion from my talk page that indicates that the Arctic origin of Hinduism is a fringe theory, which while worthy of being discussed in the proper context, should not determine the lead sentence of the main article. Abecedare 17:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

<cut-n-paste begins>

---

Dear Abecedare,

OK, thanks for your note. I do think that, on a subject as vast as Hinduism, there is room for a "further reading" section. Please note that some of the references given in the "References" section are extremely oriented: Frawley for instance, who is nothing else than a charlatan. Also, please consider the problematic first sentence of this article. Orthodox Hinduism states the "Northern" origin of the anciant Rishis. That may be symbolic, of course, but at least this should be mentionned. All the stuff about NAIT is rooted into political considerations that were foreign to Hindus during millenaries.

Regards,

TwoHorned 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am no expert on the Aryan theories, but as far as I understand, irrespective of where Aryans came from or originated, it is currently widely accepted in academia that Hinduism in its current form developed in the Indian subcontinent (note: not necessarily India) sometime around 2500-1000 BCE. Some readings of Vedas are interpreted to indicate that the people who authored them came from colder climes. But then again, according to orthodox Hindu beliefs Veda's themselvesare apaurusheya (not of human origin) and timeless. However, the intro. sentence is not meant to indicate the religious view of the origins but rather the mainstream academic views. Of course, my understanding of the acdemic consensus may be incorrect, or possibly I am misunderstanding your question itself. To clarify, are you saying that Hinduism (note : not Aryans) originated in the Arctic region ? If so, perhaps we can invite inputs from some editors more knowledgeable than mein this area and correct the first sentence if required.

I accept that not all references in the article are as high quality as one would wish, especially since the article is on a topic that has been a subject of so much study and scholarship; for example, here is an incomplete bibliography of just primary texts on the subject. However, on wikipedia we have to depend upon lay/volunteer editors to access, read, and add sources and that is always a work in progress. In fact, the large size of the corpus of primary and secondary sources on Hinduism, is one reason I am (moderately) opposed to adding a further reading section to the article. IMO it may be better to include primary sources in Bibliography of Hindu scriptures and perhaps create another list for secondary sources, if needed. However, these are half-baked ideas yet ... Abecedare 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare,

Academic texts can be mentionned, of course, but why not stand also on texts written by Hindu Saints ? Second, the question of chronology in Hinduism is not solvable. May I recommend you to read the first chapters of Guénon's Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines on this subject ? The "oral" transmission anterior to Vyasa is completely undetermined in length. And, yes, you're right Vedic text themselves are apurusheya : why not mention that ? Also, quite an interesting point: didn't Tilak himself write a book called "The Artic home in the Vedas" despite all the known relations between Tilak and Savarkar w.r.t. NAIT ? TwoHorned 21:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok now I see your point. The POV of Hindu saints and religious figures is mentioned in the correct context when discussing of Hinduism's theology, beliefs, denominations, practices etc. Their view of how the religion views itself and its teachings is clearly relevant. However the dating and history of a religion is an academic topic and hence needs scholarly citation; and Vedas being considered apaurusheya belongs in the Veda section and not in the history section. I know that Arctic origin of vedas has been proposed, but AFAIK it is not widely accepted. I may be wrong on this though, so I'll ask other editors who have worked on the Aryan theory article to chime in. Abecedare 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have avoided getting into the discussion about Aryan theories, but I did look up what J. P. Mallory had to say about the Artic theories in his mainstream book In Search of the Indo-Europeans (Thames & Hudson: 1989, ISBN 0-500-27616-1). The Arctic claim is so unusual that Mallory begins his chapter on "The Indo-European Homeland Problem" with these sentences:

"We begin our search for the homeland of the Indo-Europeans with the deceptively optimistic claim that it has already been located. For who would look further north than Lokomanya Tilak and Georg Biedenkapp who traced the earliest Aryans to the North Pole? Or who would venture a homeland further south than North Africa, further west than the Atlantic or further east than the shores of the Pacific, all of which have seriously been proposed as 'cradles' of the Indo-Europeans? This quest for the origins of the Indo-Europeans has all the fascination of an electric light in the open air on a summer night: it tends to attract every species of scholar or would-be savant who can take pen in hand. It also shows a remarkable ability to mesmerize even scholars of outstanding ability to wander far beyond the realm of reasonable speculation to provide yet another example of academic lunacy." (Mallory 1989, p. 143)

The reference to Tilak's monograph takes place in a paragraph where Mallory mentions various major camps among the theories, saying "Some scholars struggled to maintain a middle course, others provided comic relief.... Cokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak provided the world with an entire monograph marshalling all the available mythological evidence to prove that the Aryan homeland was the North Pole.[note 38] This incredible theory gained at least one supporter when George Biedenkapp, flushed with enthusiasm for Tilak's hypothesis, produced his own book summarizing the Indian savant's work in German and added further evidence of his own. The Icelandic linguist Alexander Johannesson conconcted another bizarre theory that related Indo-European roots to bird calls (Proto-Indo-European *ker- was imitative of a raven), grunts, and loud natural sounds which, according to him, could best be heard on the shores of the Baltic Sea." (p.269)

[note 38]"Tilak's 'polar theory' for Aryan origins was not a bizarre quirk of a single individual but rather the culmination of an extremely long tradition of analysis of Indo-Aryan myth, for example, poems that indicate a home in the north where a day and a night lasted six months each, the Pole star rises to the zenith, and so on. A modern review of this 'northern cycle' of myths can be found in Bongard-Levin (1980) who argues that Indo-Aryan, Iranian and Scythian traditions (and by cultural contact also Greeks) all shared a common mythology of a northern mountainous land which, he argues, could only have been acquired in their prior common home on the Pontic-Caspian steppe." (p. 277, note 38)

Buddhipriya 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to this discussion, but I have little to contribute, mainly because I have yet to find a satisfying scholarly treatment of the origins of Hinduism. I could write extensively on my personal take of the issue, but that isn't what these talk pages are for. I'll just note that (a) not having read Bongard-Levin's book, I'm not aware of any "extremely long tradition of analysis of Indo-Aryan myth" pointing to Arctic origins; (b) I have no idea what "oral transmission anterior to Vyasa" could mean in relation to issues of fact (as opposed to Puranic myths and mystical fantasies erected thereon); and (c) there is no evidence (textual, archaeological, etc.) to trace the Hinduism of pujas, temples and idols any further back than about the start of the Common Era. An overwhelming majority of Hindus don't know a word of the Vedas. If anyone is reading scripture on the bus back home from work, it's probably the Gita. And so on. Far too much ink, liquid and electronic, is spent on "high philosophy" and hoarily ancient origins (the hoarier the "better") as if these could illuminate popular Hinduism in the rank and file. IMHO. Sorry, I wound up ranting anyway. rudra 04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope it was clear that the quotation which included the reference to Bongard-Levin was from the extended citation I gave to J. P. Mallory. I have not read Bongard-Levin either. The purpose of providing the quotes from Mallory was to establish that Mallory discusses the Arctic theory within a few words of phrases like "academic lunacy", "comic relief", and "bizarre". Buddhipriya 05:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As rudra points out, it is just a matter of separating historical studies from mythology and from mysticist authors. "Hinduism" is an umbrella term, by definition applicable to all religious traditions, however disparate, that originate in India. It "originates" with the onset of sources, viz. the Vedas, although what we know as "typical" Hinduism today originates in the early centuries CE. We can very well discuss Puranic mythology, as mythology, and we can discuss the various tenets of mysticist authors of the various Hindu reform movements (Tilak, Aurobindo and what not), as 19th century "romanticist" (Viking revival style) currents. Just don't conflate things. dab (𒁳) 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Buddhipriya, Rudra and dab. Your thoughts mirror my opinions on the topic. Abecedare 08:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

---

<cut-n-paste ends>

How is it possible to separate "mythology" from "history" in the framework of sacred scriptures ? Why not mention the Vedic passages in question without interpretation ? About Vyasa, I was mentionning the well known fact that, before the formal written transcription of Vedas, an extremely long period of oral transmission existed. So how can stand "history" and chronology in such a complex framework ? To my opinion, a simple mention of both the Vedic texts and the academic theories would be neutral POV. TwoHorned 19:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Folks, the opening sentence proferred by me above is comprehensive, precise, and 'neutral' (not parochial). It is also brief and elegant for a first or opening sentence. Thanks.Kanchanamala 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Import of 'Hinduism'

I think that there is support for the term Vedic religion rather than Hinduism, which is a more geographical term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotyourPOV (talk • contribs) May 2, 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare and other fellow editors: The article is on Hinduism and not on "Sanatana Dharma". As I have pointed out above, 'Hiinduism' is an English word, and 'Sanatana Dharma' is no Sanskrit equivalent of 'Hinduism'. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking For Assistance

I'm looking at the page Idol Worship, and it says

Idol worship is most prevailant in Hinduism, the oldest practised religion of the world.

Special features

1. Generally, the idols are in pairs, that is a God accompanying a Goddess. For example, Shiv-Parvati, Brahma-Saraswati, Radha-Krishna etc., those in italics being the male counterparts.

2. Idols may not be necessarily have human resemblance as is common in Greek and Roman cultures but can be any inanimate object like the Shivlinga which is a stone structure resembling, approximately, a hemisphere mounted on a cylinder. Fire (Agni) is also worshipped as God.

3. Animals and plants also have idol status, like the cow, basil shrub, banyan tree, the Ganga etc.

4. The various avataars (form in which the Gods and Goddesses came down in earth from heaven to salvage the human race) are also worshipped, like Ma Durga is an avataar of Parvati, Ram is an avataar of Vishnu etc.

5. Even devils have been idolised, like Ravana (the villain of the epic Ramayana) etc. However, they are not worshipped, they are condemned.

Mythology

Hindu religion and idol worship are intricately interwoven with mythology, for example: In the epic Ramayana, the earth is the mother of Sita, wife of Ram(an avataar of Vishnu) and Pawan (wind) is the father of Hanuman, the greatest loyalist of Ram.

Thus wind and earth have godly status and have been given human forms.Hanuman is himself an ape.

Myths

People often regard Hinduism as a religion of many gods and goddesses. But the Rigveda (one of the four vedas; vedas are to Hindus what the Quran is to Muslims, and the Bible is to the Christians; the main religious document) states clearly that God is ekam wa adityam (one and unparalleled); the idolic Gods are just various manifestations of Him.

Conclusion

Idols are a means of identifying an abstract divinity. It is also a tribute to various natural forces sustaining our existence. They are symbolic of the great personages that have walked on this earth during different ages. They are the brainchild of a vivid imagination of the religious Gurus and Pundits to simplify to the layman follower, the abstract concept of divinity.

Some of this seems questionable to me: most worship with which I'm familiar is not worship of the object, but of the deity it represents or the indwelling spirit it houses.

Could someone with knowledge of Hinduism take a look at this article and see if it's accurate?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The article you mention above is a poor 'duplicate' of Idolatry. I have since re-directed the page back to the main link. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

About Idol worship, this is what Vivekananda has to say

The Hindus have discovered that the absolute can only be realized, or thought of, or stated, through the relative, and the images, crosses, and crescents are simply so many symbols?so many pegs to hang the spiritual ideas on. It is not that this help is necessary for everyone, but those that do not need it have no right to say that it is wrong. Nor is it compulsory in Hinduism.

At the Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1893. Complete Works, 1: 17

We are to become divine by realizing the divine. Images or temples or churches or books are only the supports, the helps, of our spiritual childhood. But on and on we must progress. We must not stop anywhere.

We can no more think about anything without a mental image than we can live without breathing. By the law of association, the material image calls up the mental idea, and vice versa. This is why the Hindu uses an external symbol when he worships. He will tell you that it helps to keep his mind fixed on the Being to whom he prays. He knows as well as you do that the IMAGE is not GOD and is not omnipresent.

After all, how much does omnipresence mean to the whole world? It stands merely as a word, a symbol. Has God superficial area? If not, when we repeat that word ?omnipresent,? we think of the extended sky or of space, that is all

At the Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1893. Complete Works, 1: 16 210.19.225.8 10:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Kumar

No citation for "Sanatana Dharma"

The number 1 after the opening sentence refers to Notes. It does not refer to a citation. It gives the false impression that the opening sentence has a citation. If there is no citation, credible of course, to say that "Sanatana Dharma" is the Sanskrit equivalent of the English word "Hinduism",then that description should be removed. When we say reference, it should be a citation. Notes are out of place in this article, and should be removed. Thanks.Kanchanamala 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's such common knowledge it hardly needs a citation. --69.203.80.158 05:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not true. It's not common knowledge. If there is no citation, then it must be removed. Thanks.Kanchanamala 05:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, that it is not obvious. Certainly Sanatana Dharma is often used as a synonym for Hinduism, but some people seem to use it differently. A westerner who worships God in the form of a traditional Indian deity, believes in karma, reincarnation and strives for moksha but does not generally follow Indian cultural practices sometimes say they follow Sanatana Dharma but not Hinduism [6]. Similarly someone of Indian ethnic origin who does not follow the traditional spiritual path may still refer to themselves as Hindu, and see it as a cultural identity. This is particularly the case in the UK where many Hindus are the Ugandan Asians and their descendants [7] who would not often refer to themselves as Indian. That said the most common use of Sanatana Dharma is as a synonym for Hinduism [8][9][10] so you could argue it either way. A definitive citation would be nice, but I am not sure that there is such a thing. Maybe we should hedge our bets and say:

Hinduism (Often translated as Sanskrit: Sanātana Dharma सनातन धर्म "eternal law

- Q Chris 07:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As requested, here are a couple of references:

• "In modern Indian usage, santana dharma is often equated with ‘Hinduism’ as a name, stressing the eternal foundation of it." from "Santana dharma", The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 2007
• "Hinduism,", Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2007.

Many more can very easily be found. Abecedare 08:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually both of the references could be seen to imply that there is a subtle difference. The first says "is often equated with", which is not the same as "is synonymous with". Your Encarta reference says:

Hindus themselves prefer to use the Sanskrit term sanātana dharma for their religious tradition.

This is closer to saying that it is synonymous but is still not a clear, unambiguous statement. -- Q Chris 08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, here are a few more, perhaps even more unambiguous references:

• "Hindu: sanatana dharma ‘eternal tradition’" from Hinduism, in The Hutchinson Encyclopedia, Helicon Publishing Ltd. 2001.
• "Sanatana dharma: The name used by Hindus for Hinduism. [from Sanskrit: the eternal way]." from "Sanatana Dharma.", Collins English Dictionary, HarperCollins Publishers 2000.
• "Hinduism itself is also called Sanatana Dharma [the eternal dharma]." from "dharma" in The Columbia Encyclopedia, Columbia University Press 2004.

Note that all these citations are from published works (not webpages) from reputable publishers. Hope that helps. Abecedare 08:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know that one classification of Hindu denominations, other than Vaishnava, Shaiva etc. is the Sanatan Dharm vs Arya Samaj classification. It is dominant in regions where there are large populations of Arya Samajis such as Punjab and the Netherlands (where Arya Samajis represent a large proportion of Hindu society). As an example, my parents regard themsleves as Hindus and follow the Sanatan Dharm denomination, who unlike the Arya Samajis, worship murtis. They are unfamiliar with the Vaishnava, Shaiva classifications. If you want sources for these assertions, I suggest the Arya Samaj webiste which should have some information since this from their perspective in a sense. The conclusion I derive from this is that Sanatana Dharma is not solely a Sanskrit synonym for Hinduism since in different contexts, in may have different meanings. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting point Gizza. A quick search seems to indicate that "Arya Samajis" used the term "Sanatana Dharma" to refer to traditional/orthodox Hinduism, which they were attempting to reform. As per the review of the book, "Arya Dharm: Hindu Consciousness in Nineteenth Century Punjab" (Kenneth W. Jones), published in The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Feb., 1980), pp. 393-394 (Review author: Mark Juergensmeyer):

"The Arya Samaj was a new dharma, a set of religion-based social values which would serve as an alternative to the existing sanatana dharma - the orthodoxy of Hindu social values which had come to stand in opposition to the Aryas in Punjab society."

Note though that the same JAS article starts with "The Arya Samaj is not a vital force in contemporary India, and in the sweep of newer religious movements it is difficult to remember why the Arya Samaj once loomed so large"; which (along with the above cited references) indicates that this usage of Sanatana Dharma is not mainstream. Also note that at least this Arya Samaj website equates Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma; to quote "This society, was formed, not as a new religion, but as a coming together of noble minded people who believe in Vaidik Satya Sanatana Dharma (commonly called "Hinduism")."

IMO the bulk of the cited evidence indicates that the terms Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma are used interchangeably in modern, mainstream usage. Abecedare 09:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If some Hindus call their tradition 'Sanatana Dharma', then let the article just say so. Let it not say that 'sanatana dharma' is the Sanskrit for the English word 'Hinduism' which it is not, even though the words 'sanatana' and 'dharma' are two Sanskrit words. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that the two terms are literal synonyms. The situation is rather analogous to India and Bharat referring to the same country in official and mainstream use even though, (1) those terms are etymologically distinct and, (2) some nationalistic sources use the term Bharat (or Akhanda Bharat) to refer to a larger geographical entity. Similarly Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma, are used to refer to the same religion by an overwhelming number of modern, mainstream sources as shown by the above references; and the fact that the terms have different origins is not really relevant IMO. Abecedare 09:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not so. 'Hinduism', a modern word of recent origin, is intended to be inclusive of all the spiritual traditions of the Hindus. Most traditions are not referred to as "Sanatana Dharma". Moreover, Sanatana Dharma, like the Arya Samaj, is a tradition of recent origin. Abecedare, if the mainstream is polluted, avoid it. I expect the article to reflect what is accurate, not what is popular. Also, Sanskrit is one language with which you don't mess. Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I am tending to agree that the current sentence in the article that reads "Hinduism (Sanskrit: Sanātana Dharma सनातन धर्म "eternal law"[1] ) is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent." perhaps should be reworded to make it more clear that while the phrase "Sanātana Dharma" is often treated as synonymous for "Hinduism" it is in fact a phrase which has broader usage.

As has been shown by the references already given, it is true that Hindus do often refer to their religion as the "eternal Dharma" ("sanātana dharma"). However that phrase also appears in Buddhist scriptures from time to time as a stock term. For example, in verse 5 of the Dhammapada in Pali we have (dhammo sanaṃtano):

न हि वेरेन वेरानि सम्मन्तीध कुदाचनं । अवेरेन च सम्मन्ति एस धम्मो सनंतनो ॥ ५ ॥

na hi verena verāni sammantīdha kudācanaṃ | averena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanaṃtano || 5 ||

"Never does hatred cease by hating, but hatred ceases by love, this is the ancient law."

(Reference: Devanagari of the Pali source text from p. 1; translation from p. 53. P. L. Vaidya. Dhammapada. The Vrajajivan Indological Studies, 42. (Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan: Delhi, 2005) ISBN 81-7084-286-7.)

The same verse of the Dhammapada is cited by Conze, who translates it as "Never can hatred be appeased by hatred; it will be appeased only by non-hatred. This is an everlasting dharma (eso dhammo sanantano, esha dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ)." p. 93.

Conze begins his chapter on the concept of "Dharma and Dharmas" with the sentence "What others call 'Buddhism', the Buddhists themselves call 'Dharma.'" (p. 92) (Reference: Edward Conze, Buddhist Thought In India: Three Phases of Buddhist Philosophy. (The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1967 paperback edition). ISBN 0-472-06129-1.)

My opinion is that this example of crossover of the phrase into Buddhist scripture is due to the fact that Buddhism and Hinduism drew upon a common stock of ideas prior to their division as distinct schools, making it difficult to call some ideas "Hindu" as opposed to "Buddhist". They were in fact "Indic" ideas which found expression in both of those great religions.

Perhaps the term "Catholic" in the sense of "universal" could be considered in relation to this. Anglicans consider themselves to be "catholic" but they are not "Roman Catholic" (with a capital C).

Buddhipriya 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its nearsighted to forget that the Buddha derived most of his terminology and foundational metaphysics/moral codes from an Upanishadic (Vedantic/Vedist or Hindu) base. The attempt to act as if Hinduism is a distinct religion birthed alongside Buddhism neglects the real history of Indic religions, which is basically Vedist in juxtaposition to non-Vedist (primarily Buddhist and Jain, which are highly interconnected, and Sikhism, which shares so much that many Hindus still consider it a sub-sect). This is not to diminish the differences, but positing an "Indic" mother religion above and beyond a Hindu faith attempts to split a rather continuous tradition from the Vedas to the Upanishads (which heavily influenced the Buddha, who didn't found a new faith as much as he served as a starting point for others to found a new faith) to Shankaracharya under Buddhist influence along with the earlier Yoga Sutras of Vedist tradition plus the later burst of bhakti sects under Madhvacharya and Vallabhacharya plus Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. --69.203.80.158 03:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I think both Buddhipriya and DaGizza raise good points with the examples of broader (i.e., Dharmic religions) and narrower (i.e., orthodox/traditional Hinduism) application of the term "Sanatana Dharma" in different contexts. So here are some possible ways to clarify the issue:

1. Remove reference to Sanatana Dharma from the intro, the footnote can then read "Hinduism is also sometimes called the Sanatana Dharma (Sanskrit: "eternal law"), Hindu Dharma, Vedic Dharma in ..."
2. Explain the whole deal in, say, the etymology section (suitably renamed). Something along the lines. In contemporary use, the term sanatana dharma (Sanskrit: Sanātana Dharma सनातन धर्म "eternal law)" is often equated with Hinduism¹, though it also used in broader² and narrower³ senses" with appropriate citation.
3. Only tweak the intro sentence, without going into details; for example something like ,"Hinduism (sometimes equated with Sanskrit: Sanātana Dharma सनातन धर्म "eternal law) ..."
4. Create a article "Sanatana Dharma" to explain the different possible uses; although I fear that such an article will either remain a perennial stub (since most content will be under Hinduism) or will tempt editors to make it a POV fork.

Any preferences and/or suggestions ? Abecedare 19:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Of the above alternatives I like the one that involves briefly mentioning the variations in meaning in an Etymology section or perhaps a small section in the article. I have been looking for other variations in use and found a broad use of the phrase by Aurobindo to include even Christian and Muslim teachings, see Minor, pp. 71-72., which quotes him as saying:

"This sanātana dharma has many scriptures, Veda, Vedanta, Gita, Upanishad, Darshana, Furana, Tantra, nor could it reject the Bible or the Koran; but its real most authoritative scripture is in the heart in which the Eternal has His dwelling. It is in our inner spiritual experiences that we shall find the proof and source of the world's Scriptures, the law of knowledge, love and conduct, the basis and inspiration of Karma-yoga."

(Quotation as cited by Robert N. Minor "Sri Aurobindo as a Gita-yogin" in: Modern Interpreters of the Bhagavad Gita. (State University of New York Press: Albany, New York, 1986) p. 72. Minor's footnote says that his source for the quotation is Birth Centenary Library. II, 19; Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, 1972)

The phrase "sanātana dharma" was appropriated by Aurobindo as a rallying cry for nationalism in this passage:

"I say no longer that nationalism is a creed, a religion, a faith; I say that it is the Sanatan Dharma which for us is nationalism. This Hindu nation was born with the Sanatan Dharma, with it it moves and with it it grows. When the Sanatan Dharma declines, then the nation declines, and if the Sanatan Dharma were capable of perishing, with the Sanatan Dharma it would perish."

(Quotation as cited by Robert N. Minor, p. 68. Minor's footnote says that his source for the quotation is Birth Centenary Library. II, 10)

Buddhipriya 19:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the article on Perennial philosophy which may be worth reading as a European variant. Buddhipriya 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I have just posted above for Abecedare. 'Hinduism', a modern word of recent origin, is intended to be inclusive of all the spiritual traditions of the Hindus. Most traditions are not referred to as "Sanatana Dharma". Moreover, Sanatana Dharma, like the Arya Samaj, is a tradition of recent origin. The article should reflect what is accurate, not what is popular. Also, Sanskrit is one language with which we should not mess. Sanatana Dharma as representing all the traditions of Hinduism should be removed from the first or opening sentence because it is not true . Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, issue very well resolved in the article. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

scope of the term 'Hinduism'

P.S. One more time, let me proffer an opening sentence which is both accurate and elegant:

The term Hinduism comprises all the spiritual traditions that have originated on the Indian subcontinent, though some followers of Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and so forth, do not like their traditions to be referred to as part of Hinduism.

Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source supporting the above statement, which seems very likely to offend members of those other religions, none of whom, to my knowledge, think of themselves as practicing Hinduism? It would be helpful if you would cite references for your views. Buddhipriya 03:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

that would be "Dharmic religions", which at least in English use is not identical to "Hinduism". "Hinduism" comprises all religious doctrines native to India that have no specific founder (other than the Vedic rishis maybe), as opposed to Jainism, Buddhism or Sikhism which are attributed to individual founders (Buddha, Mahavira, Nanak). Of course the various Hindu reform movements also have founders, but these are emphatic about not starting a new religion, but claim to go represent an even purer form of "original" ("eternal") Hinduism. At the end of the day, it's a matter of conventin: Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are not included in the term Hinduism. dab (𒁳) 07:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Wiki pages are not a reliable source per WP:RS and I am still interested in seeing a reliable book reference for the statement "The term Hinduism comprises all the spiritual traditions that have originated on the Indian subcontinent", which would seem to say that Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism could be called Hinduism. Dab's reply added the qualifying clause "that have no specific founder" which is a different definition than the one raised above. Sorry, I am old-fashioned and like to look things up in books. By asking for book references I am hoping to find good additions for my own library. The issue now seems settled for purposes of the article so this is not important to pursue. I made a couple of language tweaks because in my view the equation of Hinduism with "Sanatana Dharma" is not a simple linguistic synonym, but rather a complex of ideas associated with Hinduism and also with Buddhism. Perhaps it is sort of like a slogan ("Burger King: Think Outside The Bun"). If it were a book title, it would be the part following the colon ("Hinduism: The Eternal Dharma"). Buddhipriya 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

it'a a matter of convention. This is really a terminological debate and as such not very interesting. The 1911 Britannica has

"HINDUISM, a term generally employed to comprehend the social institutions, past and present, of the Hindus who form the great majority of the people of India; as well as the multitudinous crop of their religious beliefs which has grown up, in the course of many centuries, on the foundation of the Brahmanical scriptures."

The current Britannica has,

"Hinduism: the beliefs, practices, and socioreligious institutions of the Hindus (originally, the inhabitants of the land of the Indus River). Introduced in about 1830 by British writers, the term properly denotes the Indian civilization of approximately the last 2,000 years, which evolved from Vedism, the religion of the Indo-European peoples who settled in India"

and, in the "Saint" article,

"Hinduism in a wider sense encompasses Brahmanism, a belief in the Universal Soul, Brahman; in a narrower sense it comprises the post-Buddhist, caste-ordered religious and cultural world of India. The Indian religions are by and large mystical in character; hence, even in early Hinduism ascetics were highly honoured."

you can go on collecting such definitions, and you will see a general consensus emerging that Buddhism is not considered part, but an offshoot of Hinduism (or, as in the last example, together with Hinduism an offshoot of "Vedism"). If you want to claim otherwise, the burden of providing sources would rest on you. Likewise, the debate whether "Vedism" should be considered part of or ancestral to Hinduism is pure terminology, and as such a matter of definition and not a factual controversy. EB has "the last 2,000 years", but a lot of Hindu Wikipedians would be up in arms against this; but we can easily extend this to 3,000 or even 3,500 years if we say that "Vedism" can also be considered part of Hinduism". It is only if you want to go even past the 3,500 years that the factual controversies will begin. dab (𒁳) 17:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead section is to explain the principal concept in a straightforward manner. Overall, the term "Hinduism" is normally used in a more restrictive sense than "Dharmic religion", which has a separate article. Addhoc 17:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dab, if your last comment was in response to me, please note that I agree that Buddhism grew out of Hinduism. That's why I quoted the Dhammapada, above. My comments were intended to question the identification of Buddhism as a form of Hinduism which was implied by the original statements by Kanchanamala, above. That is, I was not questioning your forumulation, I was questioning her formulation. Buddhipriya 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, the latest version of the first two sentences read very well indeed. However, may I make a few suggestions:

1. Instead of "in several modern Indian languages" let us replace the word 'several' and say "in some modern Indian languages".

2. Citation # 1 is not a citation. Let us say 'citation needed' in the article.

3. Instead of "In contemporary usage Hinduism is often referred to as" let us replace the word 'often' and say "Hinduism is also referred to as".

4. Instead of "Sanskrit Sanatana Dharma" let us remove 'Sanskrit' and just say "Sanatana Dharma".

5. Since 'dharma' does not mean law or philosophy, and since 'dharma' is also accepted as a word in English, let us say "eternal or perennial dharma".

Thanks.Kanchanamala 23:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that points 1 and 3 are clearly improvements and I just made those edits to the article. Regarding point 4 I adjusted the wording to make it a more complete sentence. Regarding 5, I tend to agree that the translation of "dharma" as "law" does not give the complete picture, and the problem of how to translate the word "dharma" would make a good article in itself. I think for purposes of an English encyclopedia article we need to decide if it is OK for the word to go untranslated (which is fine with me) or if we should provide a translation. If so, I would go with "law" because I know it to be common for this specific context, or one of the other variants we can cite with a WP:RS. "Dharma" takes up two pages in Apte's A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary (pp. 522-23) giving 22 different basic meanings for the word. The second one listed is "Law, usage, practice, custom, ordinance, statute." I am unable to find any definition in Apte that it means "philosophy" and offhand I don't recall ever hearing it used to mean that, except in the Western phrase Perennial philosophy which did not arise in India and is a rather broad attempt to generalize a similar idea for a Western audience. I don't much like using the term "perennial philosophy" in the lead. I would prefer to cite it somewhere else as a Western concept as the article says it originated from a Latin phrase developed in the West. The Wiki article is not a reliable source in any case. The article on Perennial philosophy says that the term was used by Coomaraswamy, but I don't recall seeing it and I am ignorant of most of his work. Buddhipriya 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. By the way, modern scholarship has come a long way since the days of Vaman S. Apte and Monier Monier-Williams. As for the word 'dharma', it has long since been incorporated into the English language as an English word. It does not need any translation in that language.

Thanks.Kanchanamala 23:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In looking at the text that was in the article, I see that the reference to the Oxford source was footnoting both "eternal law" and "perennial philosophy", but I suspect that only "eternal law" was in the text we started with. So I removed "perennial philosophy" pending clarification of the citations. Regarding the use of Apte and Monier-Williams, if you know of additional Sanskrit dictionaries that are considered academic standards, please cite them here. The third one I use is Macdonell. We are required to cite WP:RS and for definition of Sanskrit terms I think those three are currently considered to be reliable sources. Buddhipriya 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's correct, Buddhipriya. They have been widely used. MW is the most comprehensive, and several scholars have collaborated on it. I rarely have to consult a dictionary, but when I do, I consult MW. Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

sanaatana does not mean 'eternal'. It means 'age-old', something which has prevailed over a long period of time, like a dharma which has been adopted by people over a long period of time. Example: "Speak 'satya', speak [what is] pleasant, don't speak a 'satya' which is unpleasant, and don't speak an 'anrita' which is [even though] pleasant - this dharma is 'sanaatana' ". Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observation Kanchan. The Sanskrit word which does mean eternal is ananta, literally "without end." MW seems to confirm this as well. Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Anthony Macdonell. A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary. sanātana (sanā-tana) a. everlasting, eternal, perpetual, permanent. p. 333 See also: sanā (indeclinable) "from of old" (V.) p. 333. Kanchamala, can you please cite a source for your interesting alternative? It may be attested somewhere, but where? See also Monier-Williams for sanā and sanāt as Vedic usage, with essentially the same definition for sanātana [11] Buddhipriya 04:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is how Monier-Williams defines Sanatana:

• "eternal, perpetual, everlasting, primeval, ancient ...". See [12] (bottom of first column).

Here is how Capeller's Sanskrit-English Dictionary defines it :

• "eternal, everlasting" (search on [13]; it will also give the MW definition).

Hope this settles the issue. Kanchanamala, I again request that you provide references for your claims in the future, since (with all due respect) "personal knowledge" carries little weight on wikipedia as has been pointed out to you on Ashvamedha and Hindu talk pages earlier. Abecedare 05:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare and Buddhipriya:

1. I shall always share with you what I think should be there in the article. You decide what can and what will go into the article. Of course, I shall also help find citations to the best of my ability.

2. 'sanaatana', primal [S. Radhakrishnan, The Bhagavadgita, XI.18, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1948]. Cp. 'sanaat', from of old [Monier-Williams Dictionary]. My take: 'sanaatana dharma', time-honored dharma.

3. dharma, prescribed conduct [Monier-Williams Dictionary], right conduct [Webster's New World College Dictionary, Third Edition, 1997], essential function [The Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1981]. My take: adopted conduct.

Thanks.Kanchanamala 13:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kanchanamala, I have to give you credit for never having pushed your point of view in the article itself or having edit-warred. Neither Buddhipriya, nor I, own this article and inclusion of new content depends solely upon the strength of evidence provided to support it, which on wikipedia means attribution to reliable sources. The main issue seems to be that you do not differentiate between what you think and what you know and is supportable by reliable sources in making declarative statements such as "sanaatana does not mean eternal"; also at times you seem to ignore evidence that does not support the case you are trying to make. For example:

• You use Monier-Williams dictionary for saying that 'sanāt' means "from old", but ignore that same dictionary's entry for "sanātana" on the same page which begins with "eternal". [14]
• You quote Monier-Williams dictionary for, "dharma, prescribed conduct" but do not point out that the actual entry starts with "that which is established or firm, steadfast decree, statute, ordinance, law; usage, practice, customary observance or prescribed conduct, duty; ...". (emphasis added)[15]
• By the way, my 1988 version of Merriam-Websters (as well as the current online version) defines "dharma" as follows: "1 Hinduism : an individual's duty fulfilled by observance of custom or law 2 Hinduism & Buddhism a : the basic principles of cosmic or individual existence : divine law b : conformity to one's duty and nature", although in this case it might be just a matter of using different editions.

I don't intend to discourage you from making/suggesting changes in the future, but it would help if you differentiated between your opinion and attributable facts. You are free to even question sources provided by other editors ("modern scholarship has come a long way since the days of Vaman S. Apte and Monier Monier-Williams") but your arguments will be taken more seriously if you back them up with citations rather than simple declarations of knowing better ("I rarely have to consult a dictionary"), which even if true but is really irrelevant on wikipedia. I urge you to read the wikipedia policy on verifiability to appreciate why that is the case, and hope you will continue to contribute constructively on this and other pages. Abecedare 18:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I must agree with the request that if further discussion is to be held on this point only solid references should be brought forward and not opinion. I do not understand the point made by quoting Radhakrishnan in the remark:

'sanaatana', primal (S. Radhakrishnan, The Bhagavadgita, XI.18, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1948). Cp. 'sanaat', from of old (Monier-Williams Dictionary). My take: 'sanaatana dharma', time-honored dharma.

The verse being quoted does not apply "sanātana" as an adjective to "dharma", but rather as an adjective to "puruṣa". If we are still examining the phrase "sanātana dharma" this is not an example of a passage that uses that phrase. It is an example of the use of the alternate phrase "śāśvatadharma" which is another one that is often translated as "eternal dharma".

Here is the Sanskrit for the verse being quoted:

tvam avyayaḥ śāśvatadharmagoptā | sanātanas tvaṃ puruṣo mato me || 11.18b ||

I am referring to p. 48 of S. Radhakrishnan, The Bhagavadgita, (HarperCollins Publishers: New Delhi, 1993 reprint edition). That is a reprint of the George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1948 edition which you cite.

Radhakrishnan translates this verse as

"Thou are the undying guardian of the eternal law. Thou are the Primal Person, I think."

There is a specific note for śāśvatadharmagoptā reading "the undying guardian of the eternal law." The adjective śāśvata (eternal, perpetual) is here compounded with dharma, and goptā (defender, protector), so the translation "eternal law" is based on śāśvatadharma, and the following sanātanas which is applied as an adjective to the following puruso is translated by Radhakrishnan as "Primal" in his phrase "Thou art the Primal Person, I think."

Compare Winthrop Sargeant's translations which are of two forms. The first version is his interlinear translation which parses each word, and the second version is more free to convey the sense:

• tvam avyayaḥ śāśvatadharmagoptā |
• Interlinear version: thou the imperishable, eternal law defender |
• Free version: You are the imperishable defender of the eternal law; |

• sanātanas tvaṃ puruṣo mato me ||
• Interlinear version: primaeval thou spirit understood of me ||
• Free version: You are the primeval Spirit, I believe ||

Sargeant's lexical note on śāśvatadharmagoptā identifies it as a Tatpuruṣa compound meaning "defender of eternal law": śāśvata (eternal, perpetual) + dharma (law, righteousness, virtue) + goptā (defender, protector). His note on sanātanas defines it as "primaeval, ancient" and his translation attaches it as an adjective to the following puruṣo. (p. 470. Winthrop Sargeant. The Bhagavad Gita. State University of New York Press: Albany, New York, 1994. ISBN0-87395-831-4.)

Compare the version by Swami Chidbhavananda, which also provides interlinear lexical notes. (Swami Chidbhavananda. The Bhagavad Gita. Sri ramakrishna Tapovanam: 1997. p. 596)

"You are the imperisable Guardian of the Eternal Dharma. You are the ancient Purusha, I deem."

Here the lexical notes parse śāśvatadharmagoptā as "protector of the Eternal Dharma" and sanātanaḥ as "ancient".

Here is Swami Sivananda's version:

"Thou art the imperishable protector of the eternal Dharma; Thou are the Primal Person, I deem."

Here the lexical notes translate śāśvatadharmagoptā as "Protector of the Eternal Dharma" and sanātanas as "ancient". (p. 270. Swami Sivananda. The Bhagavad Gita. The Divine Life Society: 1995, 10th edition) ISBN 81-7052-00-2.

What is the point of all of this debate?

Buddhipriya 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Buddhipriya, what is the point of all this debate? Sorry.Kanchanamala 09:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bhaktivedanta Swami also translates Sanatana as eternal. It it really a disputed point?:

"That is called sanatana-dharma... if we take these two words... Sanatana means eternal. That is called sanatana. And dharma, dharma means occupation, characteristic. Dharma does not mean some superficial ritualistic ceremonies. Dharma means the characteristic. That is real meaning. Dharma is not a kind of faith. Dharma is characteristic. Sanatana-dharma means sanatana characteristic, eternal characteristic." [16]

Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please visit the Dharmic Religion talk:page and see what is going on. Buddhism and Jainism have been called the protestant offshoots of Hinduism, whereas Sikhism was a martial cult to protect Hindus from the marauding Mughals. Their core fundamentals date back to Vedantic scriptures. None of the faiths are completely orthogonal and distinct from the other. All of our faiths must be united and have a sense of belonging to India.

The Vedic faith (now Hinduism) is the umbrella faith of all the others. However, because there is near-concrete and irreversible classification of Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs, the term "Sanatana Dharma" has been coined to hark back to the original sense of the term that, all 4 of these adherents are actually the branches and manifestations of one faith system only.Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

So, you are continuing using Indian_Air_Force as your signature!!! swadhyayee 09:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, by saying that the modern moniker 'Sanatana Dharma' is the Indian [Sanskrit] equivalent of the English word 'Hinduism', we are excluding all the other traditions including the Smarta tradition, the Shrivaishnava tradition, the Madhva tradition, the Gauda tradition, and the Arya Samaj tradition. By the way, Sanatana Dharma, as a Sanskrit moniker, is not there in the most comprehensive dictionary of Monier-Williams. Moreover, are we saying that Hinduism does not include the traditions of those Hindus whose dharmas are not 'sanaatana'? What about those Hindus who give up all the dharmas? After all they are Hindus too [Bhagavadgita XVIII.66]. By equating Hinduism with Sanatana Dharma, why let one group of Hindus misappropriate the word 'Hinduism' ? Why not we just say, "Hinduism comprises the spiritual traditions of all the Hindus. Those traditions originated on the Indian subcontinent. ... and so on." Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Postscript:

1. In the opening sentence of the article, the statement about Hindu Dharma should be removed because it is not supported by any reference or citation. The so-called citation # 1 is no citation. It is somebody's "your opinion".

2. In the opening sentence, the statement about Sanatana Dharma should be removed because the citation does not support it. The citation looks very impressive, but it is deceptive.

Thanks.Kanchanamala 10:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say, you guys are like some kind of frantic ourobouros or something, biting your own tail when your real prey is standing but inches away. I think the most common-sense understanding of Indian religion is furnished by Indian religionists themselves! Those astika traditions (Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaishesika, Purva Mimamsa, Uttara Mimamsa) which either accept or clearly derive from the authority or tradition tout court of the Vedas are 'Hindu'... all Shiva, Krishna and Shakti sects (this includes most Tantrics, include the Nath sect of Matsyendranath) naturally fall under this rubric, since Shiva and Krishna are NATURALLY a part of the pan-Vedist tradition! Retroactive arguments citing the 'Pashupati' seal of Mohenjodaro or strenuous arguments about how Krishna or Devi are 'aboriginal' miss the point that the Vedist tradition was syncretic with more localized cults. It's sooooo simple people are drowning themselves in highfalutin philology which really means s--t if you'll pardon my French.

Reductionist theories about how Hinduism refers to anything of Indian origin smack of something almost willfully blind to reality. Buddhism, Jainism (and Lokayata) were clearly heterodox, nastika, anti- or a-Vedist (though it is silly to forget that 80% of Buddha's doctrines directly trace back to Upanishadic thought and terminology)... Sikhism represents a very unique faith, with its hands on every cooking pot of Indian dogma.... without a doubt steeped in Hindu cosmography, musical tradition, yogic practice, and saint paramparas, and yet imbibing much of Islamic sentiment and religious sacerdotalism at the same time....AND moving off into their own traditions, unique from anything seen before....

Summarily: Hinduism is the six orthodox schools, the Nath and Shakti-tantra traditions, and the Bhakti sects of the Vaishnava variety. Focusing on the "sanatana dharma" appelation yields a debate which is arguing vociferously over a name when no one has bothered to define exactly what it is they're naming!!! --69.203.80.158 18:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Usage of IAST and Unicode in article body text

There is considerable usage of IAST and Unicode text throughout the article. While it might make it look "authentic", it also makes it look cryptic, very unreadable and user unfriendly. I would like to remove IAST/Unicode versions of the words and replace them with normal English equivalents. The suggestions proposed here are excellent. I think this article is the best place to showcase ideal usage of IAST/Unicode text. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the issue. I hope you will hold off on removal of any IAST pending better agreement on overall standards for use of IAST. I have been trying to raise this issue here. as you note. I see a great deal of inconsistency in IAST use but it has been difficult to get people to focus on the issue. Because there was an objection by one editor to having a policy discussion on the IAST talk page, and the current language pages for Indic articles appear to be defunct, I am retaining some discussion threads about this at User:Buddhipriya/IASTUsage. I think it is time to reactive the policy question at a larger level. There is also frequent confusion about the role of Unicode tags. The purpose of the IAST tag is to specify which of the many transliteration systems for Devanagari is being used, not to specify a computer encoding method (Unicode). IAST may be implemented either in ASCII or in Unicode encodings, as is noted in the discussions in the threads on the pages I have noted. I am going to try to get the policy pages reactivated and assemble these frequent questions in one place. I think the best thing would be to revive Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) and begin to refactor old threads pertaining to IAST usage. If at least one person agrees with this, I will try to work on it. Buddhipriya 19:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See also section and navigation issues

In following up on a suggestion about a potential edit to Ganesha I posted a question about formats for the See also section that has drawn some interesting discussion about the role of the See also section versus navigation templates. I am wondering if anyone else would like to take a look at the discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout#See also and repetition of links in article. Action item for the Hinduism article might be to rethink the organization of the See also section. Buddhipriya 21:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, See also should be minimized and relevant links should be worked into the article text. If See also is getting unreasonably large, it may be time to design a navigational template. You can find several samples at Category:History navigational boxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Since we already have a Hinduism portal and a Hinduism template on this page, I am wondering what role the See also section really plays. My foray into Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout#See also and repetition of links in article turned up some interesting related discussions about confusing the see also section with other types of navigation aids. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Buddhipriya 00:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is it common practice to capitalize the monotheistic Hindu god amongst Hindus? Might this not be mistaken as being the Judeo-Christian God? Should it be changed instead to Brahman, akin to how the Islamic monotheistic deity is referred to as Allah? Chiss Boy 08:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question! Because the Hindu concept of divinity is complex, sometimes you do often see the concept of Ishvara (Lord) capitalized. However Brahman is not the name of a god, but the name of a philosophical concept. There is a god named Brahmā but he is a specific deva. The terms Brahman and Brahmā are often confused, particularly when simple English transliteration is used, which makes the diacritical mark go away. There is no single monotheistic deity in Hinduism that corresponds to Allah. It will be interesting to see what others think in regard to this question. Buddhipriya 08:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The question does not actually make sense. It is English convention to capitalize the first letter of all nouns and pronouns that refer to the divine. When you say "to capitalize the monotheistic Hindu god" you must mean to capitalize the name of a devata, which must be capitalizes anyway, as a proper noun. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 21:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hindi and Hinduism

Hindi is NOT Sanskrit's heir to canonicity in Hinduism! If anything, its heavy infusion with Arabic and Persian elements would disqualify it and languages like Bengali or Marathi would be more appropriate. But these are IRRELEVANT issues! Sanskrit is the only language with any claim to ultimate canonicity in Hinduism, being the language intimately connected with the Vedas, Upanishads, the epics, Yoga Sutras, Nyaya, Samkhya, Vaisheshika, etc etc etc Lots of Apabhramsa-derived languages (IE Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, Marathi, etc) and 'Dravidian tongues' (Kannada, Tamil, Malayalam, Tulu, etc.) are used as vernacular tongues for the transmission of and practice of Hindu belief or devotional elements.

By using HINDI (where the Devnagari is identified as HINDI and not Sanskrit or, for that matter, Marathi) the page takes a political stance on the legitimacy of the Indian Republic (which is NOT ancient or medieval India, or 'Bharat' of yore per se, or a Vedist state) calling Hindi a national language. The Indian Republic is quite different from the India of the rishis, as is evidenced by the fact that a non-entity like Pakistan is now suddenly a political entity where no Pakistan existed before and Bangladesh (The so-called Land of Bengal) is really only one-half of what the kingdom of Vanga once was. My whole point is that Hindi cannot be cited as or implied to be canonical, as it was by placing it in the beginning paragraph. The majority of Hindus in the world don't even speak Hindi! (Please be smart about this, those who are about to argue... for 700 million Indians Hindi is at best a second language, then you have Nepalis, Baha Indonesians, etc.)--69.203.80.158 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Even as a native Hindi speaker, I agree. We should remove the terms marked with {{lang|hi}}. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 21:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Boon and Hindu

Suggestions, for those more learned than me in Hinduism:

• create Boon (Hinduism), even if only as a redirect. Arjuna mentions a boon but it isn't linked.
• Hindu is an adjective as well as a noun, so the adjective references should direct to Hinduism - of course, this can only be resolved by a disambiguation page, and also by changing links to Hindu into piped links ([[Hindu|Hinduism]] or [[Hindu|Hindu people]]). Hindu's current contents, about Hindu people, would be better moved to Hindu people, with Hindu as a disambiguation page. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how important it is to focus efforts on writing a separate article on boons for Hinduism... boons, wishes, genie-in-the-lamp, this stuff's so tangential to major world mythologies that it doesn't really deserve separate attention... Also, in Hinduism, boons are important only insofar as they drive folktale stories... they're not at all a major aspect of the faith... indeed, boons are not at all a part of Hinduism as much as they are a part of Indian folklore (just as boons aren't a big part of Islam but they figure as a narrative trope in the Arabian Nights). --69.203.80.158 02:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Boons are of some relevance to Hindus as they often appear in mythological stories like the Ramayana. Creating a page on it however, is probably not high on anyone's list of priorities since there are plenty of other more important things we need to do. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Boons do come up a lot, and their acquisition is a stock theme in Hindu literature. I don't see a need for a separate Wikipedia article on the subject. But I would not be surprised to find that some academic has done a paper on them (which I would enjoy reading). A name for Ganesha, by the way, is Varada (Boon-Giver = Vara+da), but the epithet varada is also applied to other deities as well (e.g., Vishnu Sahasranamastotra v. 49; MBH Shiva Sahasranamastotra v. 1), since the boon-giving function is a basic idea and probably cross-cultural, but I am ignorant of the facts. The occurance of the name Varada in the opening verse of the Shiva Sahasranamastotra is an indication that the name was considered important in association with Shiva. Buddhipriya 09:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be presumptuous and say that I believe you guys are only supporting my initial statements... bear with me briefly... let me quote buddhipriya: "stock theme in Hindu literature" (emph. mine)... and Gizza: "they often appear in mythological stories"... I know literature can be read two or three ways, but it's rarely if ever an important element in philosophical or theological discussions. The sahasranama stotra is a collection of a THOUSAND names.... and Varada is among at least hundreds of other names collectively distributed across the pantheon... what I'm contesting is not its admitted appearances and reappearances in all sorts of Hindu folklore and mythology, but its importance to Hinduism qua faith. Hence, if we were to go through with a page on boons, I would vote to have it fall under boon (Hindu mythology). Otherwise, it can lure those unfamiliar with the faith into the highly mistaken belief that boons are on a level with things like paapa, karma, dharma, yoga, dhyaan, shraddha, vishvas, etc. to Hindus/Vedists/Santanists.--69.203.80.158 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Size & Making as Featured article

Atheism with 68 KB size is promoted as Featured article on 28-Apr-2007. I think if we reduce size by 20 KB and make article as summary, we should be able to make this as featured article.--Indianstar 04:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Many editors tried this and we got close. There was a time when this page was 100kb+. However, after a while it becomes difficult to reach a consenus on what should be removed from the article because of differing opinions. Initially, copyediting and removing redundancies accounted for a drop of 20 kb or so. Now "important" content but not important enough for the main Hinduism page will need to be removed. Remember that at the moment, this page lacks vital sections, such as a criticism section. If you have the time, you may want to look at the past discussions at the archives, particulary the last two or three where many Hinduism editors tried to renovate the article. We were reasonably successful, but didn't manage make this article reach the ever so desirable Feature article status. Another problem with removing content is that sectarian biases develop because not all POVs are adequately presented. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we need criticism section? Sikhism which is a featured article does not have criticism section? --Indianstar 05:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

People have mentioned it in previous FACs and many active editors tend to agree that we need a criticism section, as saddening as it is for some of us Hindus. Sikhism is a relatively small and new religion compared to Hinduism. Other old and big religions such as Christianity and Islam have criticism sections. And some people want other sub-sections. One I remember is a section on sacred rivers like the Ganga. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

More power to you if you want to try it. I can assist in some ways but it is a huge challenge and will require few weeks of work. On the bright side, the article did go through a FARC successfully which should arguably provide an idea of what can make it featured. --Blacksun 09:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

These two links should help: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hinduism/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hinduism. The main issues are length, writing quality, a few missing sections and possible philosophical/sectarians biases that may develop. At one time, there was a strong Advaita bias for example. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

There seems ot be a dispute regarding the usage if the term Hinduism to denote the religion. It is understandable since it is a geographical term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotyourPOV (talk • contribs) May 2, 2007 (UTC)

Preferably we can all use the term Vedic religion to denote our beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotyourPOV (talk • contribs) May 2, 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Abecedare, I intend to modify the intro of the article to read:

Hinduism is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent. In contemporary usage, it is also referred to as "Hindu Dharma" or "Sanatana Dharma" in some modern Indian languages.

Okay? Thanks.Kanchanamala 01:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a revival of an issue that was previously discussed at length and rejected. Is there some new basis for your desire to change the existing text? Specifically, is there some new WP:RS that you wish to cite? Buddhipriya 01:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, as a Hindu scholar, I find that the intro is not a balanced description, and is also not totally accurate. Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

We have been over the need to cite WP:RS before. If Adi Shankara himself was a Wikipedia editor he would be asked to provide citations for his views. I also do not particularly like the opening sentences, but for a different reason related to the footnoting. The sentence "Hinduism (known as Hindū Dharma in some modern Indian languages" bears a footnote which is not in fact a reference, just an elaboration: "such as Hindi, Bengali and other contemporary Indo-Aryan languages, as well as in several Dravidian tongues including Tamil and Kannada." I think this is a defect in the sourcing for the statement itself. I have increasingly come to want to see more footnotes to WP:RS supporting anything in the article that is subject to challenge. Buddhipriya 03:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. You are saying exactly what I said above quite some time ago. Thanks for supporting my contention. I shall remove the unsupported statement from the intro. Thanks.Kanchanamala 04:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not support changing the text of the article without getting some agreement first. The point is that the sentences have been discussed at great length already, and simply changing them without discussing what would be better may not be an effective approach. Buddhipriya 04:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit by Kanchamala appears to have disrupted the connections between the references that were originally there and the current text. I will not revert the edit as others are probably more sure of which reference supports what. This seems to be a rehash of the prior debate on translation of the phrase. The current change simply imposes one view that was previously established as a minority translation on the article. Can editors who worked on the previous text please check the reference setup as it now stands? For the record, here is the text prior to her edit so the sourcing can be compared:

Hinduism (known as Hindū Dharma in some modern Indian languages) is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent. In contemporary usage Hinduism is also referred to as Sanātana Dharma (सनातन धर्म), a Sanskrit phrase meaning "eternal law".

In an effort to preserve the original sourcing, I restored the footnoting as follows:

Hinduism is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent. In contemporary usage Hinduism is also referred to as Sanātana Dharma (सनातन धर्म), a Sanskrit phrase meaning "eternal law" or "ancient law".

This has the effect of adding the alternate translation. Other editors please check the sourcing as I did not work much on the prior version. And since translation seems to be of interest, I added the Conze version discussed previously on this page. The citation which she added from the Dhammapada translation was provided by me earlier in discussion on this issue.

What exactly is the real concern? Is it that this is a political catchphrase? If so, and if it is in dispute, should it be in the lead? Or should its use as a political slogan be made explicit? Buddhipriya 05:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to the stable version of the lead since the recent changes (1) removed the Hindu Dharma nomenclature, (2) went into unnecessary details of alternate translations of "sanatan dharma" which clearly is a irrelevant diversion from the subject of this article.

If the contention is that "Hindu dharma" terminology is unsourced, it should be trivial to find reliable sources to attest to that fact.

Kanchanamala, can you please specify what objection you have to the current lead that have not been resolved earlier ? We have already discussed these issues in great detail in the past, but if an editor wants to raise some new point, please do so on the talk page first. Thanks. Abecedare 07:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Give a citation to support the statement that Hinduism is known as Hindu Dharma in some modern Indian languages, or else remove that statement. Also, it is a minor point, and does not deserve the prominence it has been given, and it certainly does not belong as part of the opening sentence of the article.

2. Give a citation to support the statement that 'Sanatana Dharma' is a comprehensive term accepted by all the traditions of Hinduism, or else remove that statement.

Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being specific - that makes it much easier to address the issues.

1. It is trivial to find sources attesting that "Hindu dharma" is a term used to refer to Hinduism in several Indian languages, and I'll provide them on the talk page in the next couple of days, if someone does not beat me to it. (I don't think this needs to be sourced in the article itself, since IMO it is as non-controversial a fact as सनातन धर्म being the spelling of Sanatana dharma, for which we therefore don't need to provide a source)
2. The article does not claim that "Sanatana Dharma is a comprehensive term accepted by all the traditions of Hinduism" so obviously this statement does not need to be sourced. The article only states that, "In contemporary usage Hinduism is also referred to as Sanātana Dharma (सनातन धर्म), a Sanskrit phrase meaning "eternal law"." and many sources have been provided for the latter statement during the previous discussion and even the article contains a citation.

The reason for including the commonly used synonyms in the lead is the wikipedia manual of style guidelines on article layout Abecedare 09:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanatana Dharma and Hindu Dharma are not synonyms of Hinduism, even as Catholicism and Protestantism are not synonyms of Christianity, and Sunni and Shia are not synonyms of Islam. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The Merriam-Webster dictionary says:

Hinduism-a complex body of social, cultural, and religious beliefs and practices evolved in and largely confined to the Indian subcontinent and marked by a caste system, an outlook tending to view all forms and theories as aspects of one eternal being and truth, a belief in ahimsa, karma, dharma, samsara, and moksha, and the practice of the way of works, the way of knowledge, or the way of devotion as the means of release from the round of rebirths: the way of life and form of thought of a Hindu.

Compare this with the amateurish hodge-podge article in the Wikipedia. Merriam-Webster does not mention Hindu Dharma or Sanatana Dharma.

Webster's New World College Dictionary says, "Hinduism-a religion and social system of the Hindus." Do we need a citation to say that Hinduism is a comprehensive term which includes the traditions of all the Hindus? Why give any undue prominence or special mention to Sanatana Dharma or Hindu Dharma, terms not used by all the Hindus? They are like religious pork barrels added to the main bill.

One of the 6 posible meanings of the Sanskrit word 'sanaatana' given by Monier Williams New Dictionary is 'ancient'. Why insist on not preferring it? Why? Did Vaidya, writing not too long ago, use it just casually? Are we interested in improving the article or not?

Taking note of the word Hindu, Monier Williams New Edition (1899) Dictionary says, (fr. the Persian ...), and about Hindu-dharma, "the Hindu religion," and cites its own earlier 1st edition (1872) for it. The Dictionary is also careful to say about Hindu-sthana, "the country of the Hindus, Hindustan (properly restricted to the upper provinces between Benares and the Sutlej."

Wikipedia has to decide whether it wants to accept Hinduism as a comprehensive term comprising the traditions of all the Hindus, or let it be hijacked by some Hindus who like to call their traditions Hindu Dharma or Sanatana Dharma.

Thanks.Kanchanamala 17:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Monier-Williams is a dictionary, not a theological compendium. Their privileging of caste as a defining feature is in and of itself a revealing facet of their mindset. If you look at a majority of Hindu scriptures, caste is not defined the way they present it to be (ie. Viveka Choodamani, Upanishads, Bhakti sutras, the Tantras, Yoga Sutras, etc.). Sanaatana Dharma and Hindu Dharma are given special mention because a lot of Hindus today are trying to retroactively give the Vedic tradition a native appelation which is free from the nomenclatural difficulties imposed by a Persian/British naming system. Sanaatana is interpreted as perennial or eternal because the whole point of 'Veda' is that the knowledge is not reified and realized in books, but is eternally applicable, beyond human time spans, so ancient is a silly and misdirected translation which doesn't capture the essence of the intended name. "Benares and Sutlej" as the geographical boundaries of Hinduism is, as your citation implies, a perspective inherited from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It makes no sense when most Indians from the Himalayas to the tip of the peninsula define themselves as Hindu. --69.203.80.158 03:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user, whatever you have said above, I don't buy it. Thanks.Kanchanamala 18:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, I cannot agree with your explanation. If you and Buddhipriya do not come up with citations, I should be quite justified to revise the opening statements. Then again, even if you were able to find citations [which I hope you do], the opening sentences would still need to be rephrased. Thanks.Kanchanamala 08:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Kanchanmala... I cannot be as indelicate and unsophisticated as you, simply deriding everything anyone else says and claiming it's all nonsense, particularly without addressing some of the concerns I may have with what he/she has said. As for your statements, Buddhism, Jainism and Lokayata have been separated off from the Vedic tradition, which has always been the primary means of identifying 'Hinduism', since people have cared to classify different streams! Even thinkers/sages (whatever you look at them as) like Madhvacharya distinguished orthodox (astika) schools from the heterodox (nastika) schools! As for your reliance on the Monier-Williams dictionary, in spite of the occasional re-editing of the text, it still remains a product of an extremely Eurocentric (read: biased) scholarship. It was Monier-Williams' contention that all Indology and Sanskritology be used to convert Indians (of Hindu, Sikh, Jain, or Buddhist persuasions) to Christianity. Thus, while I do not advocate excluding the M-W dictionary from use as a reference, I would suggest that other sources be conferred for 'authoritative' interpretations of what Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma, Veda Dharma, Arya Dharma, Yoga Dharma, etc.) in fact comprises.

Other qualms: "Hinduism-a religion and social system of the Hindus." <--- That's a stupid definition. It utilizes the word being defined to define the selfsame word, insofar as Hinduism is a derivation of Hindu. The best and most widely accepted understanding of Hindu is as specifically related to Vedist traditions, including Yoga, Samkhya, Bhakti, and a lot of forms of Tantra. Also, the Merriam-Webster dictionary forgets to mention yoga, which is an extremely central aspect of the Hindu tradition (just think of yoga's origin in the Upanishads, the Gita, and the Yoga Sutras and its role in devotional and Tantric Hinduism, as well as Advaita). So how reliable can the Merriam-Webster definition in fact be? Even a Sanskritist as lauded as Wendy Doniger was castigated by both the Indian AND Euro-American scholarly community for her unreliable and outright perverted reading of Hinduism in her Britannica article, which was soon removed. So how can you so confidently, and without scruple, accept the word of dictionaries and 19th-century scholarship and criticize others? --128.59.26.54 18:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks.Kanchanamala 05:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I have done a disservice

I have changed any occurrence of '''<span style="font-size:120%">Lorem Ipsum</span>''' to the simple ====Lorem Ipsum====. I don't know if this is controversial or not, so I have asked here.--0rrAvenger 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally support the use of standard formatting, so I think this would be a good change. Removing overspecification of formatting such as font-size tags makes articles more standardized across Wikipedia, which is a good thing. Buddhipriya 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As an added side-effect, an [edit] button has been added as a result of the change.--0rrAvenger 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The original thought behind using the HTML tags was to keep the article's Table of Content to a "manageable" length. But the change, possibly introduced by me (though it's hard to remember for sure), was admittedly a kludge. I have now used the {{TOClimit}} template to achieve the same affect. Overall, I too think 0rrAvenger's change is an improvement. Abecedare 21:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I knew there was some good faith reason for it =). I have a suggestion: can we make it so that the ToC is defaulted not to show? That is, when the page is loaded, it starts up not shown, and a user must click "show" in order to reveal it. Hmm?--0rrAvenger 21:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am open to that, since it will avoid displaying the huge blank space that currently precedes the Etymology section. But, before we take that possibly non-standard step, perhaps we can look to see if any other FA-class article (that this page aspires to be) uses that strategy. Do you have pages in mind ? Abecedare 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am randomly clicking articles at Wikipedia:Featured_articles and checking if any of them use a hidden Table of Contents. So far, none of the articles I picked have it hidden. In fact, consider The_Adventures_of_Tintin, where the ToC is one screen long. Another comparison, which may be more important: Bahá'í Faith. The Table of contents there is one screen long as well. However, they have an interesting novelty: the Bahaii faith template is parallel to the ToC, so as to not have a big blank space to the right of the ToC. Perhaps we could use that example?--0rrAvenger 22:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Along those lines, maybe we need a lead picture for this article. I'm checking articles on other religions:

• Bahá'í Faith- already explained above.
• Confucianism - There are 2 pictures in the lead. Context box has a space to its right. (On a side note: This isn't a featured article, but I would very much like to clean it up!)
• Taoism - Seems to be similar in format to our article here, but they have a picture of the Chinese character. It is a good article.

Synthesizing from these examples, perhaps we should put a picture where the template currently is, and then move the template down to be parallel with the ToC. Thoughts?--0rrAvenger 22:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Age of Hinduism: reference

Reference #3:Kenoyer, J. M. "Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization" pages 180-183. Oxford University Press 1998 Although I couldnt fishout the book, I managed to find a comentary on his other article and it says Kenoyer deciphered the Indus script and found to close to Near Eastern relgions but no direct mention to Hinduism. Thanks! Wiki San Roze ^talk 13:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you should probably finish reading the entire book, Wiki San Roze. Kenoyer, first of all, has not deciphered the entire Indus script: he has made convincing arguments for the idea that they are logo-syllabic and that he's deciphered a few of the glyphs. Secondly, he has made a connection to the Mesopotamian civilization because it is well known that Indus Valley 'polises' had active trade relations with Mesopotamia and that their script may connect to them, insofar as the Mesopotamian system influenced their use of written characters. However, Kenoyer also makes the additional assertion that the actual language being represented by the Indus script is in fact Dravidian. I assume you know that Dravidian is a name used to refer to the set of languages which predominate in the southern half of the Indian peninsula (though evidence of Dravidian languages have been found northwards). As such, Kenoyer is actually making an argument for the continuity of Indus Valley culture with later Indian history, which would actually support the conjecture that the Pashupati seal, the great bath of Mohenjodaro, a hoary proto-yogic/Hindu culture existed which would later be transmitted to, or at the very least influence, the Aryan civilization which flourished (and who either brought with them or composed upon arrival the Vedas). --69.203.80.158 06:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I should mention, many scholars (from all sorts of fields) are uncomfortable with the terms 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism' because these names have a loaded history. The funny thing is that the Persians in fact called anyone who lived in India 'Hindus' because of the Indus river! When careful scholars talk about 'Hinduism', they are careful to define it, and the usual definition involves the 'Vedic' tradition (Upanishads, Yoga, Tantra, Bhakti, etc.). For that reason, even if in fifty years scholars do find links between Indus Valley culture and Hinduism, they'd probably end up talking about the syncretism between Indus Valley cultural forms and beliefs with later Vedic peoples. --69.203.80.158 06:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry... I didn't quite realize the context until I checked out the article... I still stand by what I've said about the book, which is that we can't cite Kenoyer as proof-positive either FOR or AGAINST the Indus Valley civilization's connection with Hinduism, although his findings would actually strengthen that argument (NOT, I must add, make it solid, because there are still many lacunae unexplained)... however, I would think the bold statement that Hinduism has its roots in the Indus Valley Civilization, an unsupported statement in the introductory paragraph of the article, needs to be removed, unless it were amended to state that there is even speculation of such an origin, though the argument is still suspect: tracing certain elements or traditions back to an ancient date doesn't justify saying the religion is actually that old... in that case, it's easy to date Judaism back to the very first ritual slaughter of a ram, which would probably help it date back to 5000 BCE! --69.203.80.158 06:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again am sorry if I'm indeed sound anoying. I do not intend that. Connection with Hinduism to Indus Valley goes back to the Bull-like figure seal. I would like to agree that the Bull-like figure is Rudra and hence Shiva, but painfuly enough I will also have to see the wider sense of wikipedia, which entitles us to state what is being accepted by historians and scholars and when there is no consensus (or majority), we will have use words such as 'sugestion'/'probably' and so on. The issue on the Bull-like seal has already been dealth in another wikipedia article. Every religion finds it roots to very olden age philisophy, but those ancient philosophies cant be called the same religion. Anyways, thats my POV, but the issue is we need to stick on to whats beeing accepted as fact amongst scholars and historians. Appologies if I did hurt anyone's feelings. Thanks! Wiki San Roze ^talk 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The roots of Hinduism, much as with the roots of life are steeped more in theories than in solid facts - thus the arguments continue, each with their own pov. Gouranga(UK) 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am taking for granted that there is a consensus that there is indeed sugestions but no direct evidence of connection between Indus V civilisation and Hinduism. If I dont here back I will change the sentence into a more acceptable format, which won't hurt an Hindu nor a scholar. Thanks! Wiki San Roze ^talk 19:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The correction made after the above discussion has been reverted along with the other reverts. Can someone explain that please? Thanks! ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am taking for granted that there is no objection in removing the Indus V entry once again. Thanks! ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 13:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

idolatry?

A user persistently keeps on adding commentary accusing Hinduism of being idolatrous. Apart from the fact that Idolatry is defined as a sin, it is incorrect when reliable sources deem it as Hindu iconography. While the words are similar, iconography has a more artsy and positive context while idolatry is defined as a sin.Bakaman 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Our "good faith crusader for truth" went running to the ANI board to file a report, which is why I made this.Bakaman 03:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion about that here in the past: Talk:Hinduism/archive16#IDOL_WORSHIP_AND_POLYTHEISM_.28Debate.29. Murti is the most accurate term, just as icon is used (rather than 'idol') by certain Eastern Christian sects to describe an image that helps idealize an aspect of God. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

'Idolatry' is most commonly used as a POV word used to denigrate worship practices of 'other' religions. One person's icon or murti is another's 'idol'. Some fundamentalist Christian sects accuse other Christian sects of idol-worship for having images of Christ and images of saints. See Buddhas of Bamyan for an example of a reaction to another religion's 'idols'. Or [17] to see American evangelist Pat Roberston condemning Hinduism as 'evil' because of its 'idolatry'. ॐ Priyanath talk 05:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• I added 'idol-worship' instead of the more ill-sounding 'idolatory'. I also added that Hinduism's aspects are in sync with paganism, which is again no longer a taboo word. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

I removed 'idol-worship' - it's still a loaded POV term. Until consensus is reached here to change the text to a POV loaded version, we should keep the encyclopedic and NPOV version. Note that Idol worship just redirects to Idolatry. They mean the same thing, and are both used as an insult by members of certain religions. Also note that the same discussion occurred on the Paganism article's talk page, with the result that Pagans removed the term 'idol worship' because it's a Christian POV term. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people like using the word idol-worship, in a well-meaning way, because the term has become a neutral one in India, where obviously the vast majority of people are Hindu. But since Wikipedia is an international, web-based resource, iconography should be preferred, in all cases, over idolatry or idol-worship, unless specific reference is being made to historical viewpoints (say, to Mughals referring to Hindu temples as being filled with buts, or British bigots deriding 'idols')... indeed, as an Indian, I am all for slowly effecting a change in India itself... with more non-Indians visiting and working in India, and more Indians traveling abroad, in sum, with India's steady globalization, terminology should be updated to reflect cosmopolitanism rather than slavish 'Commonwealth' English. --69.203.80.158 18:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Idol-worship" is a clear well known term. Iconography is not. I do not think that most English speakers know the term Murthi. To summarize, "idol worship" should be used, in spite of the negative connotations that it has for some people. Andries 22:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a terrible argument. In that case, the term 'nigger' should have been retained back in the 50's when people were less familiar with more new-fangled phrases like "African-American". Idolatry propagates unfairly a completely biased viewpoint of Hindu (and, by the way, Buddhist) spiritual practices. In fact, I just thought of this, if "idol-worship" is a clear, well-known term, and "iconography" is not, then we should go and change the entire Catholicism article (and all related ones). If you can argue your case there, I'm sure "Hinduism" and "Hinduism-related" article editors would be more willing to oblige. Oh, and one more thing, this is an encyclopedia where anyone unaware of the term "iconography" can click on the clearly-marked blue link which the word iconography, in staple brackets, becomes. --69.203.80.158 23:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, may be an encyclopedia in the 1950s should have used the word nigger. I have never heard of the term iconography in relation to Hinduism. Idol worship is much more usual. Andries 23:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, many writers are adopting the term 'icon' in their description of Hindu religious figures. By the way, see an Encyclopedia Britannica article: http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-342372/lingodbhavamurti and a BBC news piece: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2929863.stm. Both refer to Hindu figurines and symbols as 'icons', not 'idols'. While you may bring counter-examples in other or the same venerable educational and news sources, the fact is that the use of the term iconography is growing in reference to Hinduism and Wikipedia's offensiveness and Point-of-View (POV) policies reject 'idolatry' as a genuine means of referring to Hindu religious symbols. Also, I would refer you to a simple search on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-5430948-7291363?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Hindu+iconography&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go . The point is not whether idol has more usage than icon, but that idol is offensive, inaccurate, and strongly biased in its perspective while icon is not. While you might argue that both of the words 'idol' and 'icon' carry Christian usage into a Hindu domain, the problem is that the English language itself is loaded with Christian terminology and many English words are loaded with Christian or Christian-influenced etymologies. The best policy is to err on the side of neutrality of expression, where icon neither judges nor condemns, while idol merely condemns. As a college student in the states, I hear far more professors and students using the term iconography than idol-worship or idolatry, since they'd be smacked down in an instant if they did so in a context of supposedly objective study of Hindu religious symbols. And my last point, the majority of editors in Wikipedia have already established iconography as the term to use over idolatry... LordSuryaofShropshire fought this war three years ago with others. --69.203.80.158 00:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying that iconography is a less widely known term that idol worship is not a strong enough argument to counter the fact that it has negative connotations, and hence is POV. There are many words in this article that someone with little knowledge of Hinduism is likely to have never heard of. If we use idol worship, we will have to explain the misconceptions it suggests which will make this already long article even longer. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See the article Iconography, which describes how different religions use "icons", NOT "idols". Iconography clearly is the accepted word to use in this encylopedia to describe religious use of....icons. The Idolatry article on the other hand talks about the sin and evil of idol-worship.

See also the Eastern Christianity template. Eastern Christianity makes rich use of....icons. One of the links in their template is Iconography. Not idol-worship, not idolatry, but Iconography. See for yourself: Template:Eastern_Christianity

Iconography is more academic for those reasons - it explains Hinduism, and other religions usage of icons clearly and scientifically, without POV and negative connotations.

Now, here's a typical example of how the term 'idol' is used in a POV way to attack Hindus:

"Of all of India's problems, one stands out from the rest. That problem is idol worship. It is said there are hundreds of millions of Hindu deities. All this has put a nation in bondage to spiritual forces that have deceived many for thousands of years." — Pat Robertson, popular American evangelist

'Idol' is equivalent to 'false god' in many Abrahamic religions, so by it's nature it is POV, and is used by those wanting to promote a specific POV - namely that worship of religious symbols they don't agree with is evil. Hindus do not see their murtis as false gods, but as representing God or some aspect of God. Thus they should be termed icons and not idols in this article. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence of Idoltry is as follows: It is usually defined as worship of an image, idea or object, as opposed to the worship of a supreme being. Now the second part of the sentence doesn't apply to Hinduism. As mentioned on this page on a number of occasions with references, Hindus worship an image, idea or object as a path a way to worship the Supreme Being, not to oppose the worship of the Supreme Being. Wikipedia is not a reliable source but linking this page to that one implies that what Hinduism incorporates. It is not even POV, it is plain wrong. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the redirect from Idol worship to idolatry. Andries 08:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that "idol worship" is still seen by members of Abrahamic religions to mean, or imply, "false idols" and therefore "idolatry". It's still a POV loaded term. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if that is the case, it is the term that is the clearest and most widely known and thus has the largest explanatory value for most readers. Andries 16:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV supersedes all other policies. See merriam webster's definition here (of idolatry)

1. the worship of a physical object as a god
2. immoderate attachment or devotion to something

The article cannot suggest that Hindus are obsessed with an attachment to the murti. That is both incorrect and opprobrious.Bakaman 16:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries, 'icon' and 'iconography' are NPOV. That's the whole point. You also need to read up on Iconography — it's far more widely used than you claim, and is the most academic term. Your claim that 'idol' has the "largest explanatory value for most readers" is true only if you are talking exclusively about Abrahamic religion adherents who believe that Hindus are devil-worshipers, oops, I meant idol-worshipers, my bad. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Easy way to solve this folks, what do the reliable sources say?--0rrAvenger 19:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition for idol in the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth edition, includes Christians and Jews extend the term to include any deity other than their own.[18] Since this encyclopedia is written for everyone, not just Christians and Jews, then we must use a term that is universal and not exclusive to one POV. There just happens to be a really good term that fits that description. It is the word icon.

The definition for idol in the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, includes A false god [19]. Obviously, idol is not the appropriate term for this article. It may be appropriate for an article about Christian Criticism of Hinduism, but not for the Hinduism article. ॐ Priyanath talk 20:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional point: while the term idol has different uses, the connotation in this context is clearly one of false god and any deity other than their own, as the two definitions above show. I believe both are Reliable Sources. ॐ Priyanath talk 20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"most widely known and thus has the largest explanatory value" - Andries ... very simple rebuttal... "most widely known"? perhaps... perhaps more so than icon or iconography... but think of English-speakers... most have been raised Catholic or Protestant (Christian)... Catholics accept iconolatry, and so understand the term icon... Protestantism in part defines itself against iconolatry, and hence most Protestants do tend to understand that they are against the sorts of 'icons' in place in Catholic churches... I would contend that those learning English and, by default, learning much of its Christian history, would at one point or another come across the term 'icon'. But, the more important point is to be made against "largest explanatory value"... if by explain I am to think, Andries, that you would mean explaining 'truths' or 'facts' or things accepted to be 'reasonable,' then by its very nature, as ably explained in the foregoing comments, "idol", "idol-worship", and "idolatry" not only have no explanatory value, but in fact militate against a true, factual, and/or reasonable explanation!!! Hence, idolatry is to be stricken as fallacious and inappropriate to a discussion of Hindu practices. --69.203.80.158 21:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, terms such as deity worship, murthis and icons are much more appropriate here. To describe the practices of Hinduism as idolatory and still claim that the article reads as NPOV would be grossly incorrect. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In my oppinion to say that hindu's practice idolatry would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Peace.--James, La gloria è a dio 11:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Free speech

See [20]

I think the confusion has arisen because of the words used. Some editors strongly believe idolatry is a negative word (exactly as propagated by Abrahamic religions) and iconography is a positive word. This is nonsense. These words are not synonymous. While iconography deals with two-dimensional objects like the vivid paintings used by the Russian Orthodox Church, idolatry includes iconography and also includes three dimensional objects of worship. It is common to see devout Hindus prostrate before living creatures (in flesh and blood) (like cows, buffaloes, elephants, rats, snakes,...) under the care of appointed minders and seek blessings. Clearly, this is outside the scope/context of iconography or moorti worship. There is no question of malice in the choice of words.

Idolatry is the core pillar of Hinduism. God is believed to manifest himself to humans in multiple forms including plants (like Tulasi), trees (like banyan), flora (like lotus) and animals (like snakes, cows, elephants, buffaloes, monkeys, rats, et al). For instance, the rat temple in Rajasthan [21] attracts pilgrims from across India who hope for blessings. This is nothing to be ashamed of and brushed under. It is part and parcel of the rich Indian heritage.

It should be noted that iconography is only a small subset of the vast fabric of idolatry in Hinduism. Instead of getting unnecessarily neurotic over terminology, this subject must be a collaborative work to raise Wikipedia usability.

Also, may I remind that this is a encyclopaedia. So there is no room for political correctness. What may be offensive to some, may be informative to others. On a personal note, I don't think there is anything evil about animal or devil worship either. So let us get rid of the stereotypes and stick to matters of fact. Now voodoo worship is also considered acceptable.

Anwar 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tulsi is not worshipped as the Supreme God, but as a devotee of God. I am not aware of any of the core traditions of Hinduism worshipping trees, rats or flowers as the Supreme God either? Deities such as Ganesha or Hanuman when worshipped as manifestations of God are not considered to be everday animals but divine beings. See articles such as Deva (Hinduism), Brahman and Ishvara for further details. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 14:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I agree with Anwar saadat when he says "there is no room for political correctnes". Also, there is a difference inbetween worshipping the actual icon and worshipping the God it represents in front of the icon. The first case is a case of idotary. Have a nice week and God bless:)--James, La gloria è a dio 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Anwar, iconography is used for three dimensional objects. From Icon: "religious cults or religious cultures[1] have been inspired or supplemented by concrete images, whether in two dimensions or three." As for the rest of your comments, they have been answered above. Consensus here is obviously in favor of keeping the far more academic and NPOV (and less neurotic, it appears) term 'icon'. ॐ Priyanath talk 14:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Priyanath, I must say that I'm not sure about that reference to 'three-dimensional' in the icon article. Do you have a scholarly citation about this? That said, I'd just like to point out that I would strongly deprecate the use of the word 'idol', which sounds deeply inappropriate to my ears - image, or a link to murti, should be sufficient. However, icon is strongly associated with two-dimensional representation in the religious context. Further, iconodgraphy has a strict meaning - the traditional accoutrements of a religious image, for example - rather than the veneration of that image, so cannot be used as a replacement for idolatry. Where necessary, use a more exact phrase rather than an inaccurate or contested word. Hornplease 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A very cursory search finds two respected and notable authors referring to Hindu murtis(readily assumed to be three-dimensional) as icons and also to iconography. "What is important is that the deities as icons in temples mediate between the human world and a divine or sacred reality, and that the icon as 'deity' might be seen as a 'spiritualization' of matter." (Flood, Gavin, Introduction to Hinduism page 14). The book Development of Hindu Iconography is about... well, Hindu Iconography. According to Amazon, the author, "Dr. Jitendra Nath Banerja was an eminent historian and Indologist. He was Carmichael Professor and Head of the Department of Ancient Indian History, Calcutta University until his retirement in 1959." Both terms are academic, explanatory, NPOV, and encyclopedic. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That search was far too cursory. The Flood reference was a bit of a throwaway; he doesn't seem to use it again much. And you clearly didnt read what I wrote above... iconography is about the traditional accoutrements of a religious image, 2-d or 3-d. It cannot be used as a word representing the veneration of images. Hindu iconography discusses the fact that Shiva is usually shown with a snake coiled round his head, etc. Hence, both terms are quite inapplicable. Please. Hornplease 06:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Look here. 'Nigger' was an acceptable word, but later became a bad-word. On the other hand, 'Yankee' was a bad-word, but later became an acceptable word (Yankee Doodle went to town is Connecticut's National SOng).

So in the same way, the words "Pagan" and "Idol-worship" are no longer used in the derogatory sense, but purely in an academic or in an objective sense.

Besides, why the hell must we pander to the definitions laid by the Catholic Church of the Middle-Ages ? Arey Garv se bolo, "We are pagans !" Swabimaan se bolo, "We worship idols!". Anyway, any westerner that you meet (except the Pope) will respect that. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

• Iconography is a word primarily from art history; it is not correct to use it for the title of an article about religious practises. The article begins:"Iconography is the branch of art history which studies the identification, description and the interpretation of the content of images." Hindu iconography is fine, but you need another title for an article on the uses etc. Personally I favour the very neutral term cult image- also academic and easy to understand; this article should be combined with the old content at idol worship for a general article (covering other religions, past and present). Cult images in Hinduism would be a good title to redirect/rename murti, if you want to. Both idolatry and idol worship are strongly negative terms to many people. Johnbod 21:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The article on Murti is well-named now, as the concept is difficult to translate into English as this discussion has demonstrated. Use of terms such as "idolatry" and "cult image" reflect POV issues by persons who do may not be familiar with the underlying issues. I hope people will not begin changing article names in response to this little flurry of debate. The term "iconography" is a general techincal term used widely in religious studies to refer to the symbolic use of images and plastic arts. Many books on Indology contain chapters or Appendices on iconography. Finding the right word to translate the term Murti is a challenge, because there is no precise translation into English for the conceptual issue. Some Western Indologists, such as Gavin Flood, use the term "icon", but the index to Flood (1996) makes the translation issue clear by having an index entry for murti which adds a "see also" entry to "icon of a deity". (ref: Flood 1996, p. 336.) A quick survey of a few texts may make the translation issue apparent. The index for Thomas Hopkins' "The Hindu Religious Tradition" has an entry for murti which he translates as "form" with a "see also" to "images". (Hopkins, p. 153) Buddhipriya 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree 1000%. Murti is an entirely different concept than what I read at Cult image and Idolatry or the loaded term idol worship. The terminology in this article, and in the other articles, has been well thought out and discussed in the past—here and by other academics. Let's keep, and let people become educated about Hinduism—that's the purpose of an encyclopedia. ॐ Priyanath talk 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with Murti, it was local editors above who were suggesting renames (i don't know what redirects there - there should be many things). But I think the current redirect from idol worship to idolatry a very bad idea indeed, and neither title is what is needed. "Cult image" is a neutral academic term. There is a strong need for a better general article on the subject, covering all religions. Johnbod 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with trying to make an article for "all religions" is that the use of a Murti in Hinduism may in fact not be the same as the use of images in other religions. That is part of the problem of definition. Further, not all statues of deities are technically murtis, under some strict ritual defintions, as in some cases only statues which have been ritually blessed in certain ways become embodiments of the divine. We have discussed this before in the parallel to the Christian concept of transubstantiation in which under certain conditions bread and wine may ritually become the body and blood of Christ. This transformation of status is the result of ritual actions. During festivals, part of the process of preparation of large parade murtis involves a similar blessing or transformation, which for a short period of time gives the murti a special character that it did not have while sitting in the shop. Buddhipriya 21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, but you can't just not have general articles like cult image and idol worship. Obviously more detailed articles should be referred to as "main article" etc, and there will be problems, but there always are. The practices/beliefs you mention just above were I think very similar to those in some other ancient religions also. Almost anything is better than a redirect to idolatry anyway. Johnbod 22:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there currently any specific action item such as a proposed redirection that is on the table at this time? I have lost track of what the original issue was and if there is any particular followup still being proposed. Buddhipriya 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the redirect of idol worship to idolatry is under review here Johnbod 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I just looked at Idolatry and cut the entire section on Hinduism because it was unsourced except for one web link to a site that would fail the tests of WP:EL. I hope more Hindu editors watchlist the articles involved, and demand better sourcing in the future. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability "Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." If editors did nothing more than demand compliance with that policy, the problems with patent nonsense on Hinduism articles could gradually be reduced. Buddhipriya 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's just use murti. John, buddhipriya and priyanath agree on that, and it seems fitting for wikipedia to educate the reader to what a murti is..Bakaman 01:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with using murti.--0rrAvenger 05:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, that's my preference, or a suitable phrase. Hornplease 06:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Murti it is. We should establish a general rule for this and other Hinduism pages that the Hindu/Sanskrit terminology is retained unless there is a clear and simple English translation which won't cause chaos when used. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In conjunction with this discussion I have been poking around and was a bit dismayed to find that some of the articles like Shilpa shastras and Prana pratishta, which are technical issues related to all of this, were in very sad shape. I have at least set up proper citation apparatus for those articles (and for Murti) in hopes that this spurt of interest may stimulate some of the editors to crack the books and add some citations that will spruce up those articles. Buddhipriya 07:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, moving somewhat off-topic, most articles in Category:Genres of Indian art are pretty stubby: Rajput painting etc, and generally Indian art is not well covered. The current account at History of painting is not good either. Johnbod 12:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for Hindu deities - could do with some renovation. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Snake worship

What is objectionable with this extract? Hinduism is sometimes considered to be a henotheistic, but such a view oversimplifies a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning idolatry, polytheism, pantheism, monism and even atheism. For instance, the Advaita Vedanta school holds that there is only one causal entity (Brahman), which manifests itself to humans in multiple forms including plants (like Tulasi), flora (like lotus), trees (like banyan) and animals (like snakes, cows, elephants, monkeys, rats, et al). The rat temple in Rajasthan attracts pilgrims from across India who hope for blessings while snake worship is more popular in south India. Many scholars consider the Samkhya school of thought to have had atheistic leanings.

All links are produced from mainstream websites. Snake worship is not some obscure occult practice. There are plenty of motion picture films in Tamil praising the omnipotence of the Snake God. Anwar 16:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Anwar, here are some of the problems with your edit:

1. Your sources, a national Geoographic article about one temple rather than a mainstream practice and a commercial tourism website hardly qualify as authoritative published sources on the subject of Hindusim.
2. Your edit misattributes the additional phrase "including plants (like Tulasi), flora (like lotus), trees (like banyan) and animals (like snakes, cows, elephants, monkeys, rats, et al)." to the "The Essentials of Hinduism" reference.
3. Your phraseology misrepresents the reverence towards plants and animals as GourangaUK pointed out before on this page.
4. Most importantly your edit places Undue weight on a relatively unimportant and non-universal aspect.
5. You raise a straw man arguments when you say (as in your edit summary) that "snake worship is not a shame". There are many aspects of Hinduism that are not the least bit "shameful" but still do not find mention in the page; for example Sita, Hanuman, Parvati, Indra, Narada are undoubtedly more important personages in Hinduism than the rats and snakes you mention, but are yet not significant enough to discuss in a summary style article. To recap: "not shameful" is not an inclusion (or exclusion!) criterion.

I assume that you didn't appreciate these finer points earlier and therefore repeated ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26]) added the disputed content in spite of reversions by sevral editors. But now that these reasons have been explained to you in detail, I hope you will desist from repeating your disruptive editing. Abecedare 17:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above analysis of the issues and also request that if you wish to pursue these points, that you please take them up one at a time rather than making bulk edits that cover a wide range of issues at the same time. If you were to focus on one topic at a time, such as snake worship or something else, that point could then be examined using strong sources, that is, academic books, rather than relying on web sites, many of which have problems related to WP:EL and WP:RS. As the other editor mentioned, the wording of material can also influence semantics. For many of these points, a survey of several academic sources would probably turn up variations in language that can be explored on the talk page so shadings can be considered by multiple editors. Buddhipriya 18:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Page is unprotected, falling back to last stable version

I reverted to the last stable version of the article that I could find, which was as of May 21. That was prior to edit wars, protection of the page, and various vandalism episodes. I made this change not because I think there is any particular content issue, but simply because the page lost track of controlled editing along the line and I would like to see if we can try again for a more orderly process. Buddhipriya 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Poor introductory paragraph and what to do about it

The introductory paragraph has poor narrative flow due to the inclusion of various nominal definitions (e.g., Hindu Dharma and Sanatana Dharma). It thwarts a reader straight away from getting to the fact of the matter that it is a religion and that it originated from India and so on.

Hence, the introductory paragraph would read beautifully for the layperson (or anyone else) if we got straight to the point, as follows:

"Hinduism is a religion that originated from the Indian subcontinent."

This then should be connected to the second paragraph which begins "With its origins in the Vedic civilization..."

The elaboration about Hinduism being known as Hindu Dharma and the Sanatana Dharma and its meaning as the 'eternal law' etc. should be moved to the Etymology section.

This makes for a crisp, to-the-point introductory statement about what Hinduism is, where it sprang from, and its significance. This is what an introductory statement should embody -- never let it get bogged down by lengthy etymological definitions. Save that for the etymology section which interested readers can refer to later if they wish to further explore definitions and etymology. AppleJuggler 01:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I rather like these suggestions. We should try to get some new ouside editors with fresh eyes looking at this. Buddhipriya 06:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As a non-Hindu, I think I would be attracted to read the article further if it starts like this:

Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world that originated from the Indian subcontinent.

In the above sentence the thrid largest religion would instantly attract the interest of a third party reader. Since most people who will read about Hinduism will be the ones who don't know about it or carry a common western view that it is some obscure faith. I think soon after this it should continue with

It is the world's oldest extant religion, and has approximately a billion adherents, of whom about 905 million live in India and Nepal, and a large population in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago.

This would out line the importance of Hinduism and its global presence, and then spelling out its theologies and history would be an obvious matter of interest to the reader. Thanks. ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 09:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I support AppleJuggler's suggestions. I also wish to bring attention to the third paragraph which is about the scriptures. I feel the detail is too much for the lead and believe that replacing it with the "Core concepts" would be more beneficial. What are everybody's thought on this? Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of moving the details of Sanatana Dharma etc... further down into the etymology section. The scripture para does look a little out of place, but I believe the details of the scriptural basis should be given somewhere in the intro. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 14:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I too like the ideas proposed by AppleJuggler, Wikiliaty and Gizza. Perhaps an idea would be to mention the "history" and "demographics" in the first paragraph; the core concepts and practices in the second; and literature and schools in the third. That will also provide a better summary of the whole article as required by the Wikipedia Manual of style. Anyone, want to take a lead on making the proposed changes ? Abecedare 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We have many good ideas here. If we were to take them one at a time and implement them slowly, I bet we could get it done with a high level of agreement being reached on the talk page for each edit. I nominate AppleJuggler or one of the other outside editors to make one of their proposed edits, and then let us all have our say on that specific point. Once one is done, go on to the next. Would this be an agreeable way of working? Buddhipriya 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Modern Indian languages

Just a quick concern that Tamil listed with modern Indian languages, which, as well can be controvertial since it is declared as a classical language. Not a big deal, but better to be more accurate. Thanks! ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 19:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but note that modern simply indicates that the language is in current use, i.e. it is an antonym of Extinct languages rather than classical languages. So Tamil is both a modern and a classical language. Abecedare 23:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I reckon in that context it should be called living Indian languages rather than modern Indian languages. But that would be rather disrespectful to the sacred language of Sanskrit and hence I think its better to avoid the word modern and leave the rest. It is just an opinion. ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 23:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How about using the adjective "contemporary" as in the footnote ? The reason an adjective is needed is to avoid frequent debates of the form "Hinduism is not a Sanskrit word. It arose only in the 19th century, so the article is misnamed. It should be called X, Y , Z which is the true ancient name" (Check the archives to see how many times this point has been debated; even earlier today the article Sanatana dharma was created as a fork instead of a redirect). The parenthetical remark thus notes right off the bat that Hinduism is used as the current name for the religion in both English and various other modern (as opposed to dead) languages, which is the standard wikipedia follows for naming articles. Does that make sense ? Abecedare 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(In a lighter vein)

A: I am a native Tamil speaker and I can attest that Tamil is a classical language. Calling it modern is insulting.

B: You exist, so Tamil is a modern language. QED

Abecedare 23:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think contemporary is a good word. If others do not have a problem, then I would say go for it. (BTW I don't find it insulting, rather would love it that way, being compromised about kannikazhiya endrum elamai konda Thamizh, but realised that most of the Tamils may find it otherwise). ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 01:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

aamaanga. Abecedare-ka mandele muley ille. Yannamo kannaa-mannan pesaraan. Tamil is an ancient language, period. That's a fact. Now let our friend Buddhipriya find a citation. Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ekam sad

This appears to be original research:

One much-quoted verse from the Rigveda that emphasizes the diversity of paths to the one goal is:

ekam sad viprā bahudhā vadanty Truth is one, the wise call it in many different ways

—Rig Veda 1.164.46

This line is somewhat cryptic and open to many different translations and interpretations. Arrow740 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We should perhaps add a translation from a well-extabilshed scholar. Griffith's translation is here at 46. is To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan. Ignoring the last part, its meaning is pretty much the same, except for the truth aspect. Though one must realise that the literal meaning of ekam sad is quite vague. Ekam mean one. Sat (sad) means truth. vandanti means call I think. Bahudha means many. Vipra I believe means wise. Therefore specific meanings of the verse only arise when it is translated according to a certain context. The Agni, Yama and Matarisvan part I presume was added for a Vedic context, which doesn't apply in Hinduism. Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Arrow740 22:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, which translation do you want to use? Griffith, Müller? My point was that almost every translation of any text tends to be translated for a certain purpose. As an example, the Arya Samaj translation of the verse will differ from a Vaishnava translation, which will differ from a Western translation. At the moment, I don't think any source is given for the translation. I suggest using a translation of an unbiased academic on the subject. My previous comment merely explained why the translation appears to be cryptic by providing a literal meaning for each word individually. Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What did you mean by "The Agni, Yama and Matarisvan part I presume was added for a Vedic context, which doesn't apply in Hinduism." Arrow740 04:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Radhakrsishnan's "A Source book of Indian philosophy" also quotes Griffith's translation of "ekam sad viprā bahudhā vadanty" as "To what is one, the sages give many a title" - so I think it is safe to cite this well-established translation in the article.
The complete two line verse R.V.1.164.46 is:

इन्द्रं मित्रं वरुणमग्निमाहुरथो दिव्यः स सुपर्णो गरुत्मान |
एकं सद विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्यग्निं यमं मातरिश्वानमाहुः ||

which Griffith translates as:

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly winged Garutmān
To what is one, sages give many a title: they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan

I hope that explains the presence of "Agni et al" in Gizza's citation. Abecedare 04:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the full quote from an established source is best. Arrow740 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If you guys choose to swim in backwaters, so be it. When Griffith gave his English translation, he did so based upon what the pundits he talked to told him. He did an excellent job in his times. Times have changed. If he were alive today, he would thoroughly revise his translations, because he was a sincere scholar, trying his best to make the knowledge of the Vedas available to people who only knew English. In all fairness to that great scholar, his translation should be displayed in a museum, not relied upon by scholars anymore. I once gave the correct translation of the mantra earlier. You guys somehow ignored it. Let me give it here once again. "Agni is called Indra, Mitra, Varuna. Therefore [Agni] is Divya, Suparna, Garutman. The entitity ('sat') [Agni] is one, the scholars ('vipraah') speak of [Agni] ('vadanti') variously ('bahudhaa'). [They have] called Agni Yama [and] Matarishvaa." FYI. Let Buddhipriya look for a citation, and not call me Adi Shankara, though I would be immensely honored to be called so. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that using a translation cited to Griffith is OK as a source, but the problem I have with this over-used passage is that I think it is too often mis-used to distort the pluralistic history of Hinduism by implying that during the Vedic period monotheism or some other form of universalist concept was prevalent, which requires that we ignore the rest of the Vedic corpus which clearly did not work from that primary assumption. The issue of whether or not there was anything like a single religious view at early times is debated, and there is a good case that can be made for the fact that the composite nature of Hinduism was the result of syncretic processes. So my preference would be to leave the quotation out, as the point in the article is that currently the various sects get along fairly well, which is true, and the reason for this is not due to that Vedic passage but due to other assimilationist forces which have been in operation for the past couple of thousand years.

Regarding the citation to Griffith, the English translation for R.V.1.164.46 is confirmed as follows by checking directly in Griffith (just one IAST change and one change in capitalization):

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly winged Garutmān
To what is One, sages give many a title: they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.

Citation: Griffith, Ralph T. H. The Hymns of the Ṛg Veda. London (1889). I use this reprint edition for sourcing: Motilal Banarsidass, New Revised Edition, Delhi, 1973. ISBN 81-208-0046-X.

Regarding the devanagari, it is not given in Griffith, but according to the text as given in the edition by Arya and Joshi it appears as follows, with two minor changes from that given above

इन्द्रं मित्रं वरुणमग्निमाहुरथो दिव्यः स सुपर्णो गरुत्मान्|
एकं सद्विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्यग्निं यमं मातरिश्वानमाहुः||

Citation: Ravi Prakash Arya and K. L. Joshi. Ṛgveda Saṃhitā: Sanskrit Text, English Translation, Notes & Index of Verses. Parimal Publications, Delhi, 2001. ISBN 81-7110-138-7 (Set of four volumes). Parimal Sanskrit Series No. 45; 2003 reprint: 81-7020-070-9.

The citation to Arya and Joshi refers to their 2001 revised edition of Wilson's translation which replaces obsolete English forms with more modern equivalents, giving the English translation along with the original Sanskrit text in Devanagari script, along with a critical apparatus. I personally prefer their version to Griffith because it is more current and includes more modern scholarship. They are Indian scholars, which may address any concern about using Western translators. Their translation is as follows:

They have styled (him, the Sun), Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is the celestial, well-winged Garutmat, for learned priests call one by many names as they speak of Agni, Yama, Mataṛṣvan.

The critical note that Arya and Joshi provide says that "Him" (the Sun) is Sayaṇa's interpretation, and that Yāska says it is Agni, but that they are "the same", citing a couple of other passages to that effect. (volume 1, p. 434). The critical note in Griffith identifies Garutmān ("the celestial bird") with the Sun, without detail on the commentators.

There is an interesting analysis of the entire hymn in pp. 71-83 of Wendy Doniger's modern translation, which for these verses reads:

They call it Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and it is the heavenly bird that flies. The wise speak of what is One in many ways; they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan

Citation: p. 80 in: Doniger, Wendy. The Rig Veda. (Penguin Books: 1981) ISBN 0-140-44989-2

Buddhipriya 09:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahimsa

User:Arrow740 has highlighted this sentence: The term ahiṃsā first appears in the Upanishads and is of the opinion that "the move from animal sacrifice was motivated by the Buddha and Mahavira". What do others think of this statment in the article? Does it represent the consensus view? From what I've picked up on the web it appears that the Chandogya Upanishad is often given as the earliest text to include the actual term (ahimsa) - but a number of texts in the Vedas also contain reference to the ideal, if not the actual term. Could anyone verify the below quotes?

• You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever. (Yajur Veda 12.32)

• Those noble souls who practice meditation and other yogic ways, who are ever careful about all beings, who protect all animals, are the ones who are actually serious about spiritual practices. (Atharva Veda, 19.48.5)

• One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head. (Rig Veda 10.87.16)

From a common-sense perspective it seems not too far-fetched to assume that non-violence as a concept is much older than any particular religious text? - But that the oldest recorded use of the term would still be of relevance. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 19:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these quotes have anything to do with ahimsa. In fact the Vedic emphasis was on himsa in the form of animal sacrifice. If the animal was sacrificed to the gods, its death was not viewed in the same way as other deaths. Even horse and bull meat was edible if it was killed in a specific way. Perhaps "kill" is not the best translation. In any case, a source would be better. Arrow740 22:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should be careful in avoiding original research or making overly broad statements about Upanishadic emphasis on himsa/ahimsa, without having strong sources to back up our statements. So far we can source that the Upanishads (Chandayoga 3.17.4 in particular; which Radhakrishnan's "Indian Philosophy" vol. 1 dates to be pre-Buddhistic) use the term ahimsa; but do not know if this is the earliest sourced usage of the term. So unless we find a source for the latter bit - perhaps we can modify the statement to simply, "The term ahimsa appears in the Upanishads ..." and readd the word "first" if/when we find a reliable source. Abecedare 04:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the sentence was added to further the POV that ahimsa was a "Hindu" invention. In fact it serves no other purpose; we are already making it clear that it is part of contemporary Hinduism, and we aren't currently discussing any reliable sources that speak to the evolution of the concept. We should just remove this sentence until someone produces one. Arrow740 04:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the same sentence from the Ahimsa article, where it was sourced to the international vegetarian union website. I think it's safe to remove it. Arrow740 04:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added reliable sources for the use of the term Ahimsa in the Upanishads (as well as Mahabharata) to the Hinduism and Ahimsa articles, while removing the unsourced claims about "first" usage. I request that you do not remove undisputed sourced information (i.e. use of the term) while justifiably deleting the unsourced bit.

Personal views: I believe that even pre-historic man must have had some conceptualization of ahimsa, at least in practice, if only to avoid unconstrained fratricide and cannibalism :-) So I doubt that any culture/society/religion can claim to be the first to have "invented" ahimsa from scratch - it is more likely that the concept evolved (and is still evolving) to include ever larger groups of fellow men and life forms (or even inanimate objects). So I find all such debates about who pioneered the concept of ahimsa to be somewhat silly. Of course, I recognize that this is just my personal view and of little relevance to the article itself, which clearly should be based upon verifiable published sources (as I have tried in my recent edits) Abecedare 05:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

himsaa is a characteristic of the conduct of certain animals. 'himsaa' means animal cruelty. In the conduct of human beings, the word for cruel is 'krura'. Ahimsa can be translated as no cruelty or noncruelty or nonbrutality. FYI. Thanks.Kanchanamala 11:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanyaasis and Moksha

GourangaUk: if Sanyaasis don't have moksha, or liberation from the chakra of rebirth (samsaara), as their goal... what is their goal? Where is your scriptural citation for such a statement? You may ask for mine, but it is so well-known that the doctrine is hardly contested: the goal of the Hindu faith is moksha, or liberation from reincarnation... what other form of 'spiritual perfection', this abstract spiritual perfection, excludes moksha as a telos? Samaadhi implies experience of the unitary origin and sustaining force of being/becoming.... knowing it, one is liberated.... one does japa to be liberated and, in dvaita schools, brought to God's realm for eternity.... where is moksha not the ultimate goal!? --128.59.24.59 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There is also Samadhi and Nirvana, which are similar concepts but the same as Moksha. Currently the page presents these terms as interchnageable, which is a problem that will need fixing. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 02:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Foremost in antiquity

Many of the main Upanishads were written centuries into the Common Era. Arrow740 03:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow can you cite this? Bakaman 03:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)