Talk:Hinduism/Archive 17

message: Devanagari is one of the most scientific scripts has traditionally been associated with Sanskrit for long time. Please do not remove a simple devanagari word from the article (Hindu dharma). Look at almost ANY Japanese or Chinese cultural article, you will see terms written in the CHinese/Japanese scripts. Cygnus_hansa 14:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Devanagari script

message: "Samsara", the meaning provided "rebirth" does not seem to be accurate.  Rebirth is known as "Punarjanma".  "Samsara", means cycle of life, death and re-birth.  Does everyone think, it should be suitably corrected? swadhyayee 11:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you. Punarjanma is exact. Samsara has a lot more to it (more difficult to explain). Aupmanyav 15:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me add to what Aupmanyavji has explained.  There is no word for 'samsaara' in English.  The Sanskrit word refers to our world on earth through which the soul ('aatmaa') passes in its journey.  Aupmanyavji, is that correct?Kanchanamala 07:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kanchan, I am not a teacher. Be bold and think for yourself. 'Samsara', I suppose includes everything, physical as well as philosophical, leaving only God outside its boundaries. Do you think my explanation makes sense? Aupmanyav 07:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That 'samsaara' does refer to our physical world 'bhu-loka' is one thing I do know from my readings.Kanchanamala 08:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samsara 

message: Discussion  moved to  Hinduism Notice Board Talk Page, since it dealt with the subject of the article. Abecedare 07:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Many scriptures, many paths.

message: discussion moved to WT:HNB. I am going to enforce this, ok? theres no reason why the India project has to be better than the Hinduism project.Bakaman 16:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually started as relevant to the article. Aup. quoted the article when he had a question about vegetarianism. Only afterwards did it become off-topic. GizzaChat © 07:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: vegetarianism

message: Has anyone taken a look at the references section lately ? As per Manual of Style guidelines, the section should contain a list of citations that have been mentioned in the notes (hence ones actually used to write the article) in alphabetical order. This is far from what we have at present. Does anyone object to me bringing the section in line with the guidelines ? Abecedare 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nope.  go ahead.--D-Boy 02:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Abecedare for your efforts. Aupmanyav 15:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The introduction is now IMO not perfect but acceptable. I made a few adjustments today to try to make everyone happy. If anyone has any major objections, not minor, please state them. Otherwise we move on. Minor objections will be dealt with after we complete the review. Besides, what should be mentioned in the intro will depend on whether it was mentioned later on in the article.
Some of us have discussed the etymology section before. It doesn't talk about what Hinduism is but where the word "Hindu" is derived from, which has some importance but not a lot. From a linguist's point of view, two paragraphs seem unnecessary but if the linguists want that much detail, let them have it (unless we realise the article is too long at the end).
Now to the Core concepts section. I think the first two sentences are fine but the stuff about common traits with Buddhism etc. needs some rewording. Any thoughts? GizzaChat © 10:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be more prudent to talk about the etymology of Sanaatana Dharma if possible, or even just have dharma to go along with Hindu Dharma. The article is long...compared to other FAs like Sikhism it is far too long, thus spending a paragraph on historical linguistics which could be spent on the actual etymology of the word dharma or something seems uncalled for. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 23:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Sanatan' is eternal, scriptures and grammarians say 'Dharayet iti Dharma', that which should be bourne/supported is 'Dharma', duty or right action. The article certainly is long and nneds a pruning of something like 40%. Aupmanyav 12:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the etymology, I think we should stick to "Hindu" instead of "Dharma" because the name of the religion in English is Hindu. If you want to prune down the etymology section, like I do since it the only section that isn't acutually about Hinduism but the word Hindu, I suggest discussing with User:Magicalsaumy who has studied liguistics and is very keen on having two paragraphs. I haven't asked him why we need two paragraphs on something which isn't even about Hinduism, especially when the article is very long. We need to make the article complete, representing most (all is impossible) sides of Hinduism but brief. One section I instantly see that needs shortening is the Shruti (Vedic literature) section. It goes into too much detail, such as saying how the Vedas are divided into Mandalas, then Shlokas ... As Aup has once said, the Vedas haven't even been read by the majority of Hindus. If Hinduism is a tree, the Vedas are the trunk and the Smriti are the Branches/leaves. Without the trunk, there is no tree, so it is very important. But the leaves are much more beautiful so everybody likes to observe them in more detail. GizzaChat © 12:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Here again I concur with you. Aupmanyav 06:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continue review - Etymology + Core concepts 

message: I have placed an in use tag at the Hinduism page, so that nobody else edits it while 68.173 reorganize the sectioning as per his best judgment. 68.173 : Please remove the Template:Inuse when you are done with your edits. I guess anyone else can remove the template too if they notice that the page hasn't been edited by 68.173 in the past hour or so. Thanks. Abecedare 01:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that, I was in the middle of a revert as you were removing alot of text. Like by the sections. — Arjun 02:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Use tag 

message: in sections 5.1 - Puja and 5.9 Mandir/Temples. The second paragraph in the Puja section is about visiting temples. I think this occurs all over the place. If we remove all the redundant material, I am confident the article will be close to an acceptable state in terms of size. 
Another point I would like to bring up is that unfortunately we need a "Criticism" section to be consistent with other religion articles. I remember this was brought up before but has now been forgotten. If some of you don't wish to have this section, you will pleased to know that we are allowed to provide some counter-criticism to each of the point raised because the article still has to follow NPOV. Having looked at the page Criticism of Hinduism, the main issues raised will be Women's status (Sati, Dowry, Widow remarriage), Caste and Hindu nationalism (or Hindutva). This means that after we shorten the article, which we are currently doing, we will need some space leftover. GizzaChat © 03:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed (again). But it may be better to complete/make progress the (relatively) mechanical task of trimming first before touching the beehive of criticism; else I can foresee us filling up the talk page many time over, with comments related to that issue alone. Abecedare 04:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that was what I was hoping for anyway. GizzaChat © 04:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge overlap 

message: Does anyone think swapping the main article Ishwar with the section we have in here would be alright? Basically, the section goes into unnecessary detail about different denominations and what they feel about Ishwar when that would do better in the Ishwar article itself. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 03:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check the history, I was the one who shortened the Ishvar article because most of it wasn't about Ishwar but instead about the six darshanas for some unknown reason. It didn't talk about their dfferent view on an Ishvar but just rambled on. I would support the swap and allow three sentences, one each on on the three prominent Vedanta views: Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita. Right now, they take three paragraphs which is much too long for something that the common Hindu hasn't ever heard of. GizzaChat © 04:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I merged it into one paragraph and moved the more detail paragraphs to the Ishvar article. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good job Nobleeagle ! Both in trimming the section and in ensuring that the details are not lost.  Abecedare 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isvar section 

message: It is too long at the moment like many other sections. I found this paragraph to be too specific:
Scriptures divide Karma into three kinds: Sanchita (accumulated), Prarabdha (fruit-bearing) and Kriyamana (current) karma. All kriyamana karmas become sanchita karma upon completion. From this stock of sanchita karma, a handful is taken out to serve one lifetime and this handful of actions which has begun to bear fruit and which will be exhausted only on their fruit being enjoyed and not otherwise, is known as prarabdha karma. In this way, so long as the stock of sanchita karma lasts, a part of it continues to be taken out as prarabdha karma for being enjoyed in one lifetime, leading to the cycles of birth and death. A jiva cannot attain Moksha until the accumulated sanchita karmas are completely exhausted. [44]
The information in the rest of the section seemed to be much more pertinent so I think this paragraph is a good one to cut. GizzaChat © 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karma and reincarnation section 

message: I appreciate the efforts of editors presently involved in rearranging and shortening the 'Hinduism' article. I agree while someone has to do the hardwork, somebody has to create the right atmosphere. I like to think that my posts also have helped in some way to create a better 'Hinduism' article, though I am not sure. Aupmanyav 06:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apreciate your efforts 

message: Can someone with expertise write a section of Hinduism's view in Free will in theology?
Thanks,
Raj2004 10:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a Hinduism section today, which hopefully covers the major points of view (in summary) to start with. Thanks for pointing out the gap. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 12:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Free will is part of karma.Kanchanamala 23:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Free will in Hinduism