Talk:Hinduism/Archive 6

message: I need help from Hindus in an attempt to speak of a common ground among believers.  Are there any Hindus here who could either help me or direct me to a group where I might find knowledgeable and mature Hindus willing to help me for a while explore the feasibility of a universalist Wiki type project on core universal truths such as possibly eternity, sacrificial love, and soul?  Tom - Talk 06:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help on interfaith dialogue 

message: There is a debate which is causing some trouble on the God article. Please have a look @ Talk:God#Brahman and see if you can add your wisdom to our debate. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 16:47, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please have a look 

message: The aspect of Karma in Hinduism is not written well and needs to be updated. If anyone who has a substantial knowledge of karma and can write well, please revise the Karma article from a Hindu point of view. Also if someone can write on the Hindu aspect of sin, that would be great.
Raj2004 14:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Karma]] and [[Sin]] 

message: In CIA world fact book  hindus make  13.28% of world population which results in 850 million people. And even more intrestingly the Page (on hinduism on wikipedia) says 96% of hindus live in India now if I take statistics from Page of India Population of india is 1065 Million Hindus make 80.5 Percent (According to that Page) which result in 857 million. If they are 96% of the population Even this wont make 1.05 billion figure! At best it is below 890 million. Even by using Indias population and 96% argument
Thanks
with regards
Zain 09:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read closely; 96% of all Hindus in the world live in India - that does not mean that 96% of India's population are Hindu. Clear? All that is telling you is that the number of Hindus in India make up 96% of the Hindu population in the world. I don't know why you want that to come out as 1.05 billion (!).
Why is Bharat listed here and then followed by India in parentheses? I know Bharat is part of the nation's official name, but it is rarely used in everyday circumstances and even less so in the English-speaking world, which is what this article and and other articles in English in this encyclopedia are aimed at. The fact that Bharat redirects to an article entitled "India" should confirm its secondary position behind "India." Parthepan 07:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population Mistake 

message: I would like to see an article created on tattvam asi (or tat tvam asi), but I'm not sure if I feel comfortable writing it. Would anyone here be willing? I'd be willing to help, of course. Cheers, Sam Spade Wants you to vote! 13:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  tattvam asi 

message: I am a senior in High School and i have written my senior research paper about Buddhist influences on the Hindu faith.  There was no current information on the topic that i could find so i posted my entire paper.  If there are any questions on the information that is posted, the references are as follows:
Edmonds, I. G. Hinduism. New York:  Franklin Watts, 1979.
“How the World Worships:  For Billions of People, the World’s Great Religions Offer
Hope, Spiritual Guidance, and Meaning to Life.” Scholastic Update. Dec. 6, 1996:  v 129 n7 p. 8(6). Student Edition. The Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark, DE. 2 Dec. 2004. <http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/ses>.
Jacobson, Doranne. “Hinduism and Buddhism:  A Shared Heritage.”  Calliope. Jan. 2000: 
v 10 i5 p. 26. Student Edition. Gale Group. Newark High School, Newark, DE. 17 Nov. 2004. <http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/ses>.
“Major Non-Christian World Religions.” World Almanac and Book of Facts. Annual
2002: p. 943. Student Edition. The Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark, DE. 2 Dec. 2004. <http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/ses>.
Perry, Marvin, et al. History of the World. Boston:  Houghton Mifflin Company, 1995.
Rao, P. Venugopala. “Science and Dharma.” World and I. Ap. 2001:  v 16 i4 p. 150.
Student Edition. Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark, DE. 17 Nov. 2004. <http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/ses>.
Renou, Louis, ed. Hinduism. New York:  George Braziller, 1962.
: Hi Morgan, for the moment, I have moved your additions to the talk page. This is not meant to rever your changes - however, 
: * the changes will need to be wikified and formatted with different sections and external references (you have already provided references above)
: * this article is already too long. The wiki standard for maximum size is 32 KB, but this article is already 47 KB! 
: I would suggest having your additions in a separate article, say something likt "Buddhist Influences in Hinduism", and linking to it from this article. --ashwatha 20:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhist Influences 

message: Hello, we are having a polite debate / discussion on Talk:Pantheism about different sects of Hinduism (particularly Smartism and Arya Samaj) and their relationships with pantheism / Panentheism. The discussion is very esoteric and weighty, but both I and my partner are polite and thoughtful, and I think some additional input might be helpful. Thank you for your time,  17:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate on Talk:Pantheism 

message: Disclaimer: I haven't read the article line-by-line. I've just glanced through the article. So, correct me if I've got some things wrong. -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
1. Is Hinduism commonly called sanatana dharma?
: I refuse to believe this. Perhaps that is a technical and more appropriate definition. But referring to that as a "common" name is not proper. I think there may be millions of "hindus" who've never heard of the name. I've been educated in a school run by Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam for 12 years and have only come across sanathana dharma as a set of values (among many others) that Hindus follow. -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
: Reading the intro again, I get the meaning of the phrase. But, this shows the level of "common awareness" that the name has! -- Sundar 11:32, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
2. Cow or a bull?
:The picture claimed to be a "cow in Delhi" looks like a bull to me. I can't confirm without looking at the genitals though. -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
3. POV?
:The article appears to be POV. -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Following are my observations on Hinduism: -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
* Hinduism was not an organised religion with well-defined tenets as the article seems to indicate. 
:This holds good atleast if you consider the vast majority of people whom you refer to as "hindus". Have you ever lived in villages of south India? Most people there did not know the existence of Vedas, Bhagvad Gita etc at all! Thanks to the mass media, they're now aware of the characters like Shiva, Vishnu etc Most people used to worship village deities like Ayyanar (in Tamil Nadu), who were referred to as Guardians of the village and the method of worship was entirely different from any of the Vedic rites. The majority wouldn't have known that a language called Sanskrit existed and there were hymns in them. They used to sacrifice fowl, goats, and even place arrack as a token of worship! Only in recent times that they have started worshipping the "hindu" gods. -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
* Hinduism did have a caste system and still has.
:There is a tendency to glorify everything of our past heritage, which need not be. Religions evolve over time and would've had some weird practices which may not be considered reasonable in the current context. There is no problem in accepting them. -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
* Vedic form of hinduism is practised  in south India only by a significant minority of hindus.
:But the article talks only about that form of hinduism. -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
I've been raised as a practising Hindu and was taught a lot of hindu moral values throughout and hence I admire hinduism for many things, most importantly, it being not too organised a religion. Currently, I am an atheist, though. -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
: Sundar makes some good points here. The central thing to realize (and our article does not do this justice) is that Hinduism, the religion, is different from Hindu culture.  Hinduism as an organized religion encompassing the entire Indian subcontinent (and that is what we westerners think when we use the term) was founded by Shankaracharya. Why doesn't the article mention him? 
: As Sundar implies, you can belong to a culture without being religious or even being aware of your culture as a discrete entity. The entire concept of "Hinduism" as a "world religion" is only a couple centuries old, but the <I>Hindu culture</I> goes way, way back. --Smithfarm 16:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections 

message: The article on major world religions states that Hinduism has 900 million followers worldwide, while this article states that it has 1.05 billion. I am suspecting that the sources (the one in this article has not been specified, BTW) are equally accurate, but I want to get it confirmed. If I'm correct, I suggest that we should change the wording from "1.05 billion" to "ranging from 900 million to 1.05 billion" in this article and maybe add a sidenote on the other article.--GatesPlusPlus 14:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of followers 

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Boo... Sam Spade  23:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Irrelevant. We should fight for better causes.  Subramanian talk 07:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  announcing policy proposal 

message: I had not come here for some months, and this article is today in a, let me say, less fit shape. I was really proud when it became a FA, but it has since endured many additions and the text does not flow properly anymore. There is also the problem of redundancy and unecessary length. We should make an effort to push it to a new "featured" version. I suppose all the great people who contributed to that before are here to help, along with some new people. What do you think?  Subramanian talk 07:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan. Sam Spade  08:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to know if it is just me or if you also think this article needs work as it stands today. Sam?  Subramanian talk 17:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Frankly I'm on the verge of slapping a dispute header on it. It strikes me as anti-Hindu. I suggest you use the history to compare the featured article version w the present one, with an eye for improvements (and the lack thereof ;) Sam Spade  22:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  out of shape; what about a new effort?

message: We need a Pracharak article. Sam Spade  15:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pracharak 

message: This article really needs a throughout rewrite and a cleanup. I lack the time to do this, but the "introduction" alone is five times longes than it should be and is very congested. Far away from brilliant prose.  Subramanian talk 11:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, although it has made progress. It has some good content, what it needs now is organization, layout and  stylistics checks. dab (ᛏ) 12:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Cound´t we use the Featured Version as a frame, and then incorporate any relevant information from its present form?  Subramanian talk 12:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I will state the obvious:

message: This article has degenerated into some metaphysical discussion of Hinduism from a religious viewpoint.  I've reverted the edits as I really do not understand their point.  Were they a religious discussion?  A philosophical discussion?  I just don't understand where the information was taken from. Mano1 22:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Degenerated indeed. I suggest we take the old featured version, put it at Talk:Hinduism/temp and incorporate the unfotunately few good stuff from the current version. Exactly how can we find the Featured Article?  Subramanian talk 22:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

text: yes, it is a jungle. You need to establish rigorous guidelines as to what is included, otherwise stuff will just keep piling up, with everybody trying to insert their little piece of wisdom somewhere. This should be Wikipedia:Summary style, with very short and concise summaries of the various existing articles. Most of all, it should not preach! Just the facts please, no details, fewer pictures. The details can all be given in the various sub-articles. dab (ᛏ) 09:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why fewer pictures? --goethean ॐ 15:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article has degenerated

message: I think the photo of the woman with Bindi should be replaced with another one. The fact that the head of the woman is covered will be  interpreted wrongly by many people. 71.240.192.202 05:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bindi 

message: Whats Hindu about? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu 

message: The article has degenerated even further; now it includes the doubtful historical timeline of dating hinduism's birth using astrology.Mano1 00:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolutely terrible 

message: Who are you 2 tamper with a precious article??
It provided me some authentic Information on Hinduism
:The "need for clean-up" note, you mean. I didn´t. But I would, if it were removed. You see, even the worst article can be useful and that wouldn´t make it clean by any judgement. Furthermore, Everyone is "someone" to "tamper" with any article at Wikipedia.  Subramanian talk 05:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who added the clean up?? Vandalism??? 

message: * WEBOLIM.info: A non-profit organization that preaches dharmic life
* Devi Mandir - More than a place of worship 
* Swaveda: A Forum for Indian Studies
* True History & Religion of India
* Shri Aurobindo Kapali Sastri Institute of Vedic Culture
* Collection of Scholarly and Academic links on Hinduism
* Chinmaya International Foundation - The Maternal Ancestral Home of Shri AdhiSankaracharya and the Center for Advanced Sanskrit Research and Indology
* Vedanta.org
* Saranam
* Panchmukha.org (Five Faces)
* ReligionFacts.com on Hinduism Fast facts, glossary, timeline and articles on Hinduism.
--Dangerous-Boy
Why remove sites with Hindu themes or affiliations like Shri Aurobindo, Chinymayananda and Vedanta institutions? --68.173.46.79 21:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I´m not sure about this yet, but I think that Links about Sri Aurobindo should be at the Sri Aurobindo article, links about Chinymayananda should be at the Chinymayananda article and the same for every Link that is not about Hinduism itself. Hinduism is too rich for all relevant links to be equally and fairly represented at the main article, so it´s better to avoid injustice and keep its links about Hinduism only.   Subramanian talk 02:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  links removed 

message: if you really want the revisions to be better, you should remove all of the religious overtones from it.  The article has a very slanted point of view that is pro-hindu and anti-monotheistic religion.  Further, the sections are all influenced by this view.  Even the history section is non-neutral.Steelhead 04:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: revisions are horrible

message: What's the status of this article , former featured article or ? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:08, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
:I have no idea how the article was ever a featured article. In its current state it is absolutely terrible.  It is not so much of an encyclopedia article on hinduism as it is a spouting of religious sentiment from the Hindu community online.  Most of the sections are ladened with inaccuracies, especially the history section.  Steelhead 04:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was featured on 18 April 2004.  Standards have certainly risen in the 16 months since then, and some articles promoted at that time wouldn't pass a nomination today.  I haven't read this so can't comment; if you think it's substandard you could consider taking it to WP:FARC. Worldtraveller 17:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of this article 

message: I will make changes shortly. Please discuss objections, suggestions.
Possibly.. 
* Add samskaras
* Add pilgrimage sites (Kumbh mela, Kashi etc)
* Add festivals & traditions
* remove 'the legal definition in India' section - it is interesting but don't think it belongs here.
* remove links to the many organizations (dedicated to a guru, saint or God) listed in external links. The list can grow on endlessly and should be an all or nothing. In any case, there is a 'Gurus or saints' and 'denominations' section in the 'Topics in Hinduism' and points to the relevant articles. The links can go in their respective articles.
:I already fixed the links. Talk:Hinduism/temp#External_links --Dangerous-Boy
:: looks much much neater.. --Pranathi 22:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do 

message: * A Tribute To Hinduism - an excellent site about Hindu culture's achievements in various fields.
* Atma Jyoti Ashram Articles on aspects of Hindu spirituality.
* BBC Religion and Ethics on Hinduism
* Authentic Hinduism Encyclopedia
* Hinduism.co.za
* Hindu.org
* Hindunet.org
* Hinduism and Hinduism resources
* Sarve Samachar - Hindu news
* VEDA - Vedas and Vedic Knowledge Online
---- Dangerous-Boy
Looks good. I'd only suggest include the '10 common questions..' on Hinduism-today's website as well.--Pranathi 04:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: There are many major sects in Hinduism, for example the Sai Baba sect and Swami Narayan sect which are not mentioned in the article. I think the article is incomplete w/o any information regarding the two sects. Tx -- 22:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is already too long. Dangerous-Boy 05:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd suggest you add them to Contemporary Hindu movements or Survey of Hindu organizations.--Pranathi 15:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm.. not a bad idea. Regarding the issue of the article being too long, I must say there are a lot of stuffs which dont deserve to be on Hinduism's main article. Take the example of the section current geographic distribution. We do have articles like World Hinduism and Hinduism by country. Writing an entire list is not necessary on main Hinduism article. Also, how about creating a template consisting of links to all major Hinduism-related articles and putting it right in the beginning rather than towards the end of the article. See articles on Islam, Israel and Christanity for example. Thanks -- 16:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on cutting the geographic dist down. Down to 2 or 3 sentences or eliminate completely. Any preference? I will do shortly unless I hear otherwise.--Pranathi 00:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: * 
something like this--Dangerous-Boy 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What about this one? -- 02:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if u separate them  The whole purpose of making the small one is so that there can be an alternative this that big ugly page footer. --Dangerous-Boy 03:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I think there is still something missing. Any suggestions? -- 03:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hinduism by country and History of Hinduism.  Also make it thinner or longer instead of fatter. --Dangerous-Boy 02:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This one looks pretty good to me! --सदस्य वार्ता 07:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different sects 

message: Could anyone indicate something about resurrection in Hinduism? I've mentioned about resurrection in India at the resurrection. These can be copied and expanded. --Jondel 05:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Resurrection from the Dead]]

message: The article now states that vaishnavas are the dominant denomination in India as per adherants.com. But this site lists only Vaishnavites, Shaivites, neo-Hindus and reform Hindus, and Veerashaivas. No mention of Smartas - can only think that's because they distributed smartas into the category of their ista devata or that smarta are such a small minority that they don't count? Any thoughts.. ? I am inclined to change that sentence back .. 
On the additional wording on the cow .. However, consumption of carabeef (buffalo meat) remains and India is a leading exporter of carabeef [2]. Further, some of the lower caste people (Dalits etc.) also eat such beef variants. Evidence also suggests that consumption of beef was quite prevalent in Vedic India. [3] - I think this portion is irrelevant to the section which summarizes Hindu views on vegetarianism and cows. It mentions the ban in holy cities but not all of india - I can see how many 'Indians' may automatically extend that to the rest of India - but I don't see a need to assume that of the reader and make a deliberate attempt to negate that possible extrapolation - it makes the parah more defensive/corrective of assumptions than informative on Hindusim. Also, the evidence of beef consumption in vedic times is a controversial topic - see , I verified some of the vedic stanzas cited and they are okay. Since this is a summary and doesn't attempt to delve into the history of the taboo on beef, may I suggest that the discussion be moved to another page, where it is more in focus?
I can see maybe the predominantly abstain .. beef sentence in section as a contentious issue. maybe we can discuss alternate wording. We will need backup that large sections of lower caste Hindus (not India as a whole) eat it to say that practice is not predominant. --Pranathi 00:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should some sort of separation between India and Hinduism in the article.  Just because a person is Indian, that does not mean they are Hindu.  India is also secular country that has separation of church of state (althought it favors minority religions for some reason).  Also, there are Hindus in other parts of the world like Bali.  --Dangerous-Boy 08:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The sentence which I rm was As per [Adherents.com] the majority of Hindus are Vaishnavas, though often mixing in some aspects of the Smarta viewpoint. According to you the original sentence was It should be noted however that the majority of Hindus do not fall under any of these denominations and tend to hold the most inclusive, the Smarta, viewpoint. Both the sentences are conflicting and frankly I dont know much about these denominations. According to the site adherents.com 580 million Hindus are Vaishnavites which is well over 50% mark. If you can prove your claim, then I think its worth adding to the Hindu denominations article. Also there are a lot of stuffs in the article which perhaps dont deserve to be on the main Hinduism page. Think its time to clean up the article. Also note that according to be Wikipedia policy, an article's size should be below 30 kb. --Deepak|वार्ता 05:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the article is well over length and details need to go in the subpage. But this is an important part of denominations topic I think because really the majority of Hindus don't classify themselves under any. But no I can't back it up.. or haven't tried. Will pursue when I can. Thanks for your input. Will leave it be for now.--70.180.168.143 16:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denominations and the cow 

message: The article is primarily on north based hindu traditions and little to nothing is spoken on the south indian rural hindu practices. eg. in AP there is someone called "pothuraju" who dances in a trance when "gods are upon him" in women its called "ammavaru". In Tamil Nadu there is even a village diety (aiyyanar) that is unique for each and every village who is sometimes given more respect. the strange customs of these hindus too needs to be mentioned. The south indian festivals and their cultural diversity in the rural hinterland seems entirely forgotten. Maybe someone can add them since I'm not an authority on this. Idleguy 06:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually problem is that there are so many diff sects, rituals, traditions and cultures in Hinduism that is extremely hard if not impossible to come up with a complete picture of Hinduism. I think that all these materials can be incorporated into the Hindu denominations and movements or culture article rather than the main page. The recent edits which I have made to the article focus more on the teachings of the Vedas and Gita which form the backbone of Hinduism. --Deepak|वार्ता 06:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some of the practices of Hindus 

message: Anyone want to help out on History of Hinduism.  It needs some work and organization.  The goal is to make it as good as History of Buddhism. --Dangerous-Boy 08:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of Hinduism]] 

message: It shows up as:Hinduism (also known as Sanātana Dharma, and Vaidika-Dharma on my browser.--Dangerous-Boy 01:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It was caused by User:Baryonic Being's edits 2 days ago. Looks like his/her browser is misconfigured and escapes all HTML special characters. Ambarish 05:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  can someone fix the transliterations and devangiri? 

message: It seems the entire article is only about Vaishnavism....heavily invaded by the ISKCON people. I have added lines explaining "Hindu", "Ishvara", "Brahman", "Vedas", "Puja" and entire section about Hinduism's view of other religions, assuming a "highly neutral point of view". Now please don't say that they are wrong! Also, I have readded a teeny bit on sacrifice. I had earlier presented the sad issue of animal sacrifice, with a neutral point of view while also saying it is now condemned, but it was deleted by some "Vaishnavite". Why? What do these people want to say? That anyone not conforming to their dogma, their "High Church" and their own concept of Vishnu worship, cow worship and vegetarianism is a non-Hindu? This is ridiculous. Just go to the temples of Nepal (in no way meaning disrespect) or Kali temples of Bengal and numerous other temples and see the boold sacrifices? Will the ISKCON church exocommunicate them?
By the way I am also a Hindu.
Cygnus_hansa 23:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cygnus_hansa, I was the one that deleted the animal sac portion. I am trying to get the ISKCON website deleted from the external links section, so I hope that qualifies me as more neutral than you assume. The reason (I gave the same with my edit) I removed it was because it is not a mainstream practice that applies across Hinduism (it is practiced by particular sects (Shakta?) only). This article is about Hinduism as a whole and is already too long. Animal sacrifices don't carry enough weight to be put in the main article and may be put in the subpages of ahimsa (I mentioned that as well in edit) etc. Also reverance for cow & vegetarianism is a pretty standard feature of Hinduism - anything specific against that? I may have added it too, as the cow reverance is frequently miscontrued and derided by westerners as worship and perceived as a dominant feature of the religion - I wanted to address it and put it in perspective. 30% of Hindus are vegetarian, the page mentions that it is not dogma and only recommended as sattwic - it doesn't mean that those that don't practice it are not Hindu. --Pranathi 00:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Some comments on your changes. Most are very good. But the issue with this page is that it is really long and we are attempting to cut it short - to keep the gist here and move anything that can be moved into the subpages of Hinduism. A note: the page is actually more oriented towards the Smarta viewpoint for ex: Vaishnavites believe that Brahman is an expansion of Vishnu only, that Brahman is supersoul but not God himself - but the page talks of Brahman as the ultimate. Also, the new section on views of other religions is POV. --Pranathi 01:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These various differences among Hindus is what I find so hard to understand. According to what I know, Hinduism focusses that God is one but has different forms. So why make these remarks "deleted by some Vaishnavite". Actually the practices of HIndus have become so diverse over the ages, that what a particular Hindu in say Mizoram practices is completely different from what a Hindu practices say in Rajasthan. --Deepak|वार्ता 04:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since there is so much diversity, I would ideally like this page to show the elements that tie Hinduism together and distinguish it as a religion - elements that are common across the religion irrespective of denomination. Does everyone agree? Can we make this one of the guidelines for this page? This (2002 Microsoft encarta page on Hinduism) is what we don't want it to be - something that focusses on differences within the religion and fringe practices. If you look at Christianity as well, it has a lot of diverse beliefs and practices (like ex. Deepak mentions with Mizoram and Rajasthan), in fact it mentions so in the intro itself. But unlike Hinduism which is usually projected as too confusing to be defined - or defined as a philosophy rather than a religion and all those vague trappings - Christianity is defined with it's common elements and the differences are handled much better. Maybe because Hinduism has been defined through western lenses for too long, (from an abrahamic definition of religion) that see it as a foreign (and sometimes unfreindly) religion, Hindus have ended up twisting the meaning of Hinduism. just my POV --Pranathi 14:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism or Vaishnavism 

message: Can some tag the image? --Dangerous-Boy 22:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The user who uploaded it has a history of uploading images w/o tagging them. I'm afraid but I'll have to tag the image as  and send it for deletion. Too bad we'll lose such a nice image. --Deepak|वार्ता 22:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nataraja image is untagged 

message: The images are not tagged properly.  It says they will be deleted soon. --Dangerous-Boy 07:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:YoungBrahminBoy.jpg and Image:Kumbh mela.jpg 

message: Would anyone like to help out this article?  It seems that his massacres and atrocities were left out. --Dangerous-Boy 06:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Muhammad bin Qasim]] 

message: Deepak, 
The referenced site says:
As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.
But the image says:
Hindus believe that every living being is an eternally existing spirit (the soul or the self). While changing its body at every moment, this soul passes from one form of body to another. 
The second sentence seems wrong though.. that the body changes at every moment. I think it's Buddhist philosophy (or Jain?) that the universe flickers in and out of existance every moment. The sentence seems to reflect that thought- I don't think there is a similar theory in hinduism. Can anyone reference that concept (second sentence)? --Pranathi 22:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transmigration img descr

message: Deeptrivia, I am wondering about the wording myself (.. is it the word you're after?). I know we use Brahman ubiquitously in this article - but I think Vaishnavites believe Brahman, the super soul, to be a creation of Ishvara. But if we use the term Ishwar - is that out of line with advaitic thought? Kind of out of my territory here.. if someone can clarify, hopefully we can use a universal term for the Supreme in hinduism.--Pranathi 02:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Brahman or Ishwar

message: Islamic conquest of South Asia is totally  biased is an exhaults islamic invaders.  Could really use some work. --Dangerous-Boy 10:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Islamic conquest of South Asia]]  

message: I added one line on Shankaracharyas in Temple section because I think at least the 4 patriarchs out to have tiny bit of a mention.
Cygnus_hansa 05:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, please see the Hinduism and Vaishnavism section on why we want to focus on things that are common across the religion. Not all Hindus follow the Shankaracharyas lineage.. he is an eminent figure and is mentioned elsewhere in the article. The Shankaracharyas are best mentioned in the denominations article. The reason we need to make this non-partisan is because one person considers the Shankaracharya lineage as the highest, another the Ramanuja lineage the highest, another Ramakrishna mission etc.. the problem is not with the different groups fighting it out or trying to put their views into prominance but the tolerance and respect each has for the other - so we end up with people giving way for fear of being seen as intolerant and we end up again with an uncontrolled, large article as this article has tended to become - easily. Also the constant comparison to Christianity is unencyclopaedic (the Christian background 'speaks' to christians only), eurocentric and ...  - Hinduism should be explained on it's own, it can stand it's own ground without support - see articles on other religions for comparison.--Pranathi 07:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shankaracharyas 

message: On Purushamedha, it was written that it is a human sacrifice.
On Ashvamedha, it was written that the chief Queen of the King "copulates" with the dead body of the sacrificed horse, and the other three Quuen meanwhile utter "obsceneties".
I have edited and corrected all that nonsense.
User:Cygnus_hamsa
203.199.81.148 17:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice edits! I saw the pages too but didn't know fact from fiction (& no time to research).--Pranathi 17:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense on other Hinduism related topics 

message: Please note that the Sanskrit/Hindi अ is a mid vowel, like the a in ago, or e in later, and hence must be transcribed as the schwa 'ə'. अ is not a short form of आ, and simple unaccented 'a' means a short α:, which is a back vowel. The other two vowels, उ and इ have true short and long forms.
User:Magicalsaumy
203.199.81.148 11:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gayatri mantra transliteration