Talk:Hinduism/Archive 15

message: Cant believe such articles are allowed here! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Hindu And the mention of this article is on Hinduism page! Sarvabhaum 17:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry. There is also Islamophobia, which Anti-Muslim and Anti-Christian prejudice and Antisemitism which is against Jewish people. GizzaChat © 02:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that is definatly true...It would be very hard to find any religion that doesn't have any criticisms or any people who are anti that particular religion. This is just due to the fact that the world is a very, very large place and many people have their viewpoints. Don't fret about it or you will never overcome it.__Seadog ♪ 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Anti-X" articles are typically written by adherents of X. See also talk:Islamophobia. That's not to say that such "Anti-X" phobias do not really exist, but you are more likely to find "Anti-X" articles are really "pro X" propaganda than otherwise. I am being accused of "Anti-Armeniamism" for not accepting that the Mitanni were Armenians, as "Anti-Turkic" for not accepting the Scythians were Turks, "Anti-Macedonian" for not accepting the Ancient Macedonians were Slavs (or Greeks), "Anti-Islamic" for insisting that depictions of Muhammad have a place on Wikipedia, and, yes, "Anti-Hindu" for not accepting the IVC was "Vedic". dab (𒁳) 12:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Go thru that article and Islamophobia. U will find many diffences.Anti-hindu articles is pathetic and rediculuous! Esp the image displayed on the top.The whole scanned booklet containing rants against Hinduism.Sarvabhaum 11:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Anti-Hindu 

message: This has reference to contents of article and recent edit of Magicalsaumi who has preferred not to chage or comment the "Satwik" food and "Gau Puja".
I feel, "Satwik" should be spelled as "Satvik".
It is im-proper to say that veg. food is "Satvik" or non-veg is avoided to stick to "Satvik" food.  In no terms, non-veg. is accepted as food but the food is divided in 3 catagories i) Satvik  2) Rajsi and 3) Tamsi.  They are described along with similar 3 catagories of faiths in Ch.17 of Srimad Bhagawad Geeta.  So telling all veg. food is "Satvik" is grossly wrong.
Regarding cow not being worshipped but venerated is partial truth.  There is a day ("Bal-Choth") when cow is worshipped.  Cow is not worshipped the way idol is worshipped except on "Bal-Choth" or similar other days.  Similarly, I think bullocks, elephants and snakes are also worshipped.  One can not say, Hindus venerate snakes though there is "Nag-Puja".  One may find idol of "Pothia" (bullock?)in any "Shiv" temple and customarily one has to show reverence to "Pothia" 1st than "Shiv".  I think, the sages in order to protect birds and animals from killing placed some reverence in them.  Like crows are considered to be "Pitrus", Eagle to be vehicle of "Vishnu" and so on.  The true things should be properly expounded. swadhyayee 03:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is better to use the  term "veneration" for puja, because it gives a positive image to the Catholic world who make a SHARP distinction between their veneration and worship practices (dulia and latria). For we Hindus, terminology does not matter, but, in case you haven't noticed, Wikipedia is meant for the global world, which contains many biased people. Remember, for US, it does not matter what terms we use, but for THEM, it matters. And again and again you cannot say that we are not going to be Euro-centric, or force the rest of the world to accept our fabricated semantics. Don't make Hinduism appear like a pagan, barbaric and foolish animism, which it actually is not. Use good terms. Use icon instead of idol. Puja stands for both veneration and worship. My interpretation is that the Hindus only worship God, and venerate the rest of the things (animals, trees, guests, gurus devas, icons, etc) as symbols of Divine manifestation. Also, Bhagavad Gita never mentions veg-nonveg foods and stuff. It is just an interpretation of later Hinduism. Cygnus_hansa 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, ahimsa has many interpretations. In most places it means against mankind, though in later times, it was extended against animals too. It is just what you conclude from here that it means vegetarianism. It has no direct implications on food. Of course there is mention of Samkhya concepts od Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, but there is no explicit listing about which foods belong to which category. This is what I am saying. And yes, if you want to make terminologies, semantics and connotations according to your POV, I guess English wikipedia is not the best place for it. Why don't you go to Hindi and Sanskrit wikipedias and write what you want? English is not the native language of the Indians. When I came to the United States I found that half the English we use has different meaning or connotation in the global scenario (forget about just the United States). I think it is not very wise to dance Waltz in Bharat Natyam costumes. And what you say: "idols" which has been in place for long: you probably don't know that the British deliberately used these terminologies for describing Hinduism because "idol" has a very, very wong connotation in the Christian World. So the terminologies introduced to deliberately malign Hinduism, you end up supporting them. Cygnus_hansa 12:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Aupmanyav, I don't think you understand what Cygnus is trying to say here. What I think he is saying is that Hindi and Sanskrit words such as murti have many possible translations in English. The Westerners, in order to present the religion as terrible as possible used the most negative terminologies in can associate these Hindu terms with. Using his example, worshipping icons does not sound as bad as worshipping idols, so the gora scholars would in this case use the word idol as a translation for murti. Swadhyayee is also using negative terminology which had been developed by the scholars. On the English Wikipedia, we have to make the article as simple to understand for everyone speaking English, both Hindus and non-Hindus. Just using words with more positive connotations means that those who are not knowledgeable about Hinduism will learn about our great faith much easier. GizzaChat © 14:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DaGizza, we hindus are idol worshippers, we cremate our dead, we worship many Gods and some times even none. If any westerner does not like it, it is his/her problem. Should we be ashamed to own that we worship idols? Are we going to say to endear ourselves to westerners that we are not idol worshippers? At another time, Cygnus has been insisting on saying that hinduism is a monotheistic religion, which has been discussed many times in this page and rejected. The challenge still stands. If Cygnus is so ashamed of these things, he should probably join one of the Abrahamic religions. I am ashamed to know of a hindu (is he one?) with such ideas. Still with the colonial mind set, trying to please his western masters? What else we should say to endear ourselves to the westerners? Aupmanyav 17:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satwik & Gau Puja. 

message: I deleted the following edit from Magicalsaumy:
"Most contemporary Hindus would find calling Hinduism polytheistic as something ranging from indifferent, to wrong, to offensive.Vedic foundation: individual viewsVedanta Mission FAQs
"
for the following reasons:
* The first reference is simply a web survey and fails the reliable source guidelines.
* The second source does not support the statement (and may not be a reliable source anyway). The only relevant portion I could find on the page, had this to say:
"Q: Is Hinduism polytheistic?
A: Hinduism believes in one all-pervading Supreme Reality which in Sanskrit is called "Brahman". Brahman is that infinite, undivided, unchanging reality behind all that we experience, behind the entire universe. The infinite nature of Brahman prevents It from being comprehended by the mind, or described with words. The various gods and goddesses for which Hindiusm is famous, are therefore regarded as the highest representations of That which cannot be entirely represented. This allows the spiritual aspirant to choose the representation that most resonates with his or her heart. And knowing that Brahman can never be adequately represented promotes respect for the variety of ways in which It is represented and worshipped."
which (1) is already covered on the webpage, (2) says nothing  about "Most contemporary Hindus"  purported response to being called polytheistic, namely "indifferent, to wrong, to offensive". Abecedare 05:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm that is correct...Very good job sniffing that out, I originally deleted it in request of it needing references. But the user was actully willing to go back and add not one but two references. But after reading both like you say they do not primarily assert the topic of what was trying to be included in the article. However let us not jump on the user for making this mistake.__Seadog ♪ 05:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Magicalsaumy, I hope you don't read my comment as biting ! I do not agree with this particular edit, but do assume good faith. Abecedare 06:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I meant to add it like describing a subjective thing objectively, which is certainly allowed. Otherwise on Wikipedia no psychology article should be allowed, because that's what psychology is all about: studying a subjective thing (mind/psyche) objectively. Cygnus_hansa 06:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am fine with this, but I object to any sort of implication in Wikipedia's voice that polytheism is in any way inferior to monotheism, or incapable of concepts like "supreme reality". Most of this debate is actually more offensive to  polytheism in general than to Hinduism. dab (𒁳) 13:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monotheism  

message: Also is "about.com" considered a RS source on wikipedia ? My reading is that it is not and should be removed too, but since I am not sure of this I'll wait for other editors' input. Abecedare 05:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes defiantly wait for other editors opinions since it would be nonsensical to delete many refs. I have actually found myself at the site before but I am unsure about it also basically since Its been a while since I have been.__Seadog ♪ 06:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: About.com is reliable. Its not partisan in any way, and is run by the new york times, another reliable source.Bakaman 17:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, and thanks for the input. I just realized that I was mixing up about.com and answers.com. Abecedare 18:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answers is a wikipedia mirror, I think.Bakaman 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About.com 

message: As I had indicated sometime ago, I have made several bold edits to make the article more encyclopedic and understandable to international viewers (not just observant Hindus). I have provided sufficient references, but I regret that the total quantity of edits is not conveniently possible to list here on the talk page. I will continue to make more edits, especially in the scriptures section. Cygnus_hansa 10:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck.__Seadog ♪ 12:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: God certainly exists according to Hindu belief in the pragmatic level of truth. He is the image of Brahman. Parabrahman is true in the transcendental level of truth, which is the highest, supreme level. And nothing other than Parabrahman can actually exists in this level. That is why we stress on the fact that Parabrahman is the very existence itself. If you say otherwise, it would mean that Parabrahman and something else and else exist together in the transcendental level. This cannot be true, since everything else is illisuin except Parabrahman. Cygnus_hansa 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose there is no mention of any thing like 'Parabrahman' in Badarayana's 'Brahma Sutra'. Beliefs belonging to a particular sect should not be taken as the true explanation in Hinduism. Aupmanyav 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is, in the Upanishads and in Bhagavad Gita, which form the basis of Hindu faith. Cygnus_hansa 11:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Hello i got a question, in the the is stands: "Brahman is the Absolute Truth: it is pure existence, In this sense, the attributeless Brahman is called Parabrahman,
It is the supreme bliss. Parabrahman does not exist 
nothing in the universe truly exists except Parabrahman".
If you read it says brahman is pure existance and braham is called "parabrahman" AND "parabrahman" aperantly doesn't exist, So i got a questin what is the sensce in that to belive in a god like dosen't exist...?
it can also be that is only i like being stupid.
well i will be happy if you can anserw my questing pritty quick.
Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cxw cs (talk • contribs).
::God certainly exists according to Hindu belief in the pragmatic level of truth. He is the image of Brahman. Parabrahman is true in the transcendental level of truth, which is the highest, supreme level. And nothing other than Parabrahman can actually exists in this level. That is why we stress on the fact that Parabrahman is the very existence itself. If you say otherwise, it would mean that Parabrahman and something else and else exist together in the transcendental level. This cannot be true, since everything else is illisuin except Parabrahman. Cygnus_hansa 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose there is no mention of any thing like 'Parabrahman' in Badarayana's 'Brahma Sutra'. Beliefs belonging to a particular sect should not be taken as the true explanation in Hinduism. Aupmanyav 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is, in the Upanishads and in Bhagavad Gita, which form the basis of Hindu faith. Cygnus_hansa 11:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: questing

message: Hi, all
I was wondering whether editors can replace the image (i.e., Khajuraho at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu#Religion_for_the_common_Hindu with a non-sexual image?
It gives the wrong impression about the article, religion for the common Hindu.
Thanks.
Raj2004 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image at Hindu

message: i have uploaded 'aum' in saffron (bhagva).please change the original black pic with this pic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:242px-Aum.svg.png
I am unable to do it. Sarvabhaum 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the reason for that is the fact that the Aum is part of the Hinduism template, so you can't directly change it by editing the Hinduism article. You can disscuss changes on the talk page of the template.__Seadog ♪ 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consider that we never visualize 'Om' or the 'Swastika' in black or blue. It is always white, red, or yellow (chandan, abir, gulal). Aupmanyav 17:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please update image 

message: For of those of you who are not aware, there is a discussion over which design should be used for the Hinduism barnstar (there already seems to be consensus that we need the barnstar). The first/original barnstar with the green and white Aum was introduced by User:Srkris. The other two with yellow and red Oms were created by Priyanath. Any input is appreciated. GizzaChat © 10:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#Hinduism_WikiProject_Award|Hinduism Barnstar Proposal]] 

message: #There are instances where a proper noun such as Brahman which, in addition to being italicised (since it is a non-English word) are also bolded in various places in the article (e.g., in the lead paragraph). Further, the word Brahman is arbitrarily bolded in the section 'God and the soul': in some places it is bolded, in others its not; in some places the word is italicised, in others it is not italicised. May I know why it is bolded in the random places where it is bolded? And why there is inconsistency in the italicisation of the word?
#Under the section 'Etymology', it is mentioned that "the Persian term Hindu is derived...". When highlighting a certain word or concept as a term, as we do here, to my understanding it is done as follows -- 'Hindu' -- rather than by bolding the word (but I could be wrong -- its just that I've never or very very rarely seen words being bolded in text unless the author is intending to emphasise an important point made).  
#Under the 'Ishvara' subsection, 'Supreme Lord' is bolded. Why?
These are my observations when skimming through the article, and I thought it would be fruitful to discuss these here. Cheers, AppleJuggler 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these words should be bolded per WP:MoS. Feel free to unbold them. GizzaChat © 03:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed some but I am not sure if I removed it all. — Seadog 03:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I bolded te texts, simce I was not aware of the wikipolicy. But I'd support italicizing Sanskrit loanwords, which is almost a sacred style of print matter wherever non-native English words come up (cf. Webster's New World Dictionary)Cygnus_hansa 12:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are some words '''bolded''' in the text? 

message: Sometimes, it may be useful to be cite varied sources (e.g., likely a non-Hindu sage/guru/follower's writing, such as an academic source) to support conceptual statements (in addition to/as supplement to sources linked to Hindu organisations or people who are Hindu sages etc. -- the reason for this is obvious). AppleJuggler 03:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have altered the heading of this to better reflect what I should mean. I understand that you have people who could have malicious intent in their writings. We should use our best judgement to sift out who is being impartial and who is partial. There is no other way than this. My point is, let us, if possible, cite academic articles as well as publications by religious bodies. I did not mean to say that we should NOT use the works of religiously affiliated or widely-respected religious authorities. If we have a broad range of sources that we draw from, the reader of this article might, for example, think, "Hmm... not bad. They have referred to a broad range sources -- academic and religious books, articles, journals -- the chances are high that this article is an impartial and unbiased account of Hinduism." I hope that you understand the basis of my suggestion (i.e., principles of broad scholarship in writing an article, reliability, impartiality and objectivity). Just trying to help make this a good encyclopedia article in the little ways that I can, folks. Cheers, AppleJuggler 03:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion: It would be good if varied sources are also used to cite concepts 

message: Why is the Caste section POV disputed. I can't seem to find anything wrong, can anybody give some details as to why so we can fix this problem. — Seadog 20:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality  on the Varnas/Caste section 

message: What divinity? For an 'advaitist', there is no divinity. It is brahman, and there is no reason to call brahman divine. It is all the same everywhere. There is nothing undivine. So the question of the difference divine/undivine does not arise. It is only a hang-over from the unenlightened days. Aupmanyav 04:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'experience the Divinity that is everywhere' 

message: I do not think there is anything old or modern, or orthodox or unorthodox in Hinduism. The 'Nasadeeya Sukta' said that the Gods came after the creation of the universe some 5,000 years ago. I believe the same in this 21st Century. Hinduism is a flowing river, philosophies come, philosophies prosper, philosophies become redundant, and arise again, all the time. Kanada theorised an atomic world in his Vaisesika Darshana more than 2000 years ago. I believe the same. In the interregnum there have been people who have searched and found God/Gods, they still do. There are others who still find solace in their village Gods as they used to do perhaps in stone age and sacrifice animals for them. I cannot claim that I am right and they are wrong. I have no such right or proof. Again, it is their truth and their tradition. Where do you put your finger? Aupmanyav 06:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I don't believe in your mythology! Cygnus_hansa 11:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is mythology in what I have written? Nasadeeya Sukta is a part of RigVeda, Vaisesika is one of the Astik Darshanas, and villagers still go by what their Ojhas (witch doctors) say and offer animal sacrifice. Aupmanyav 13:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern vs. Old, Orthodox vs. Unorthodox 

message: Quoted from above:
DaGizza, we hindus are idol worshippers, we cremate our dead, we worship many Gods and some times even none. If any westerner does not like it, it is his/her problem. Should we be ashamed to own that we worship idols? Are we going to say to endear ourselves to westerners that we are not idol worshippers? At another time, Cygnus has been insisting on saying that hinduism is a monotheistic religion, which has been discussed many times in this page and rejected. The challenge still stands. If Cygnus is so ashamed of these things, he should probably join one of the Abrahamic religionsand rest in peace, in life and in death. I am ashamed to know of a hindu (is he one?) with such ideas. Still with the colonial mind set, trying to please his western masters? What else we should say to endear ourselves to the westerners? That Jesus is the tenth and the last avatara of Lord Vishnu? Aupmanyav 17:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: औप्मान्यव जी, आपके साथ बहुत भारी समस्या है । मैं और आप एकदम उल्टे हैं । आप हिन्दू को एक ethnic शब्द मानते है और मैं उसे faith-based मानता हूँ । आप उन बेवकूफ़ हिन्दुत्ववादियों की नुमाइन्दगी करते हैं जो कुएँ के मेंढक हैं और कुएँ के मेंढक ही बने रहना चाहते हैं । पहले तो आपको हिन्दू धर्म के बारे में कुछ मालूम नहीं है, ऊपर से आप वाहियात परीकथाओं में विश्वास करते हैं । आप बहुदेवतावाद और मूर्तिपूजा से ऐसी मुहब्बत क्यों करते हैं? ओह्ह्ह्ह्ह्ह्ह, मुझे बूझने दीजिये । क्योंकि ये आपको इब्राहिमी धर्मों से अलग बनाता है । यही तो मुश्किल है हिन्दुत्ववादियों के साथ । वो उन चीज़ों को हो हल्ला मचाकर पेश करते हैं जो उनको अलग ethnicity  देती हैं चाहे वो कितनी भी ग़लत क्यों न हों । इन कुएँ के मेंढकों को इब्राहिमी धर्मों से नफ़रत है । और नफ़रत ही इनकी बेबुनियाद मान्यताओं की नींव है । मैं "born Hindu is a Hindu" को नहीं मानता । मेरे हिसाब से जिनको हिन्दू धर्म के सिद्धांतों मे यकीन नहीं है उन्हें ख़ुद को हिन्दू कहने का कोई हक़ नहीं । वो अपने आप को ज़बरदस्ती हिन्दू धर्म के साथ जोडे  रखते हैं क्योंकि उनके हिसाब से वो कुछ और कर नहीं सकते -- क्योंकि वो हिन्दू "पैदा" हुए हैं । अपनी पैदाइश की चीज़ की रक्षा करना उनका धर्म है : और इसके लिये वो उन्हीं चीज़ों को बढा चढा कर पेश करेंगे जो अनको "विदेशी" धर्मों से अलग बनाती हैं । रही बात मेरी : तो मैं हिन्दू पैदा हुआ था , लेकिन मैं साथ ही साथ पसन्द से भी हिन्दू हूँ । ये इसलिये क्योंकि मैं न्याय-वैशेषिक और अद्वैत दर्शनों को काफ़ी हद तक मानता हूँ और वेद-उपनिषदों पर आधारित हिन्दू विश्वासों को आदर देता हूँ -- Orthodox Hindu faith । मैं आपकी तरह नाममात्र हिन्दू नहीँ हूँ क्योंकि मैं इसमें पैदा हुआ था  कुछ लोग ऐसा सोचते हैं कि क्योंकि वो हिन्दू धर्म में पैदा हुए थे और "विदेशी धर्मों में जाना गुनाह होगा" -- इसलिये हिन्दू बने रहो और उसे जितना हो सके, अपने को अलग साबित करने की कोशिश करते रहो -- मगर मैं ऐसा नहीं मानता । मैं  आपकी तरह ढोंग ढकोसला नहीं करता । मुझे देवताओं में यकीन नहीं है क्योंकि वो मेरे नज़रिये से मेल नहीं खाते । उपनिषदों में परमात्मा का ही गुणगान हुआ है और ऐसा कहीं नहीं लिखा कि जो देवताओं में मान्यता नहीं रखते वो "हिन्दू" नहीं हैं । इसलिये मैं मन्दिर कम ही जाता हूँ । आप एकदम उल्टे हैं । आपको परमेश्वर या उसके अस्तित्व पर यकीन नहीं है (क्योंकि आख़िरकार ये सब तो इब्राइमी धर्मोँ की मान्यताएँ हैं ना, इनका हिन्दू धर्म से कोई लेना देना थोड़े हि है! छि छि) ; इसलिये आपको देवताओं पर भी यकीन नहीं है । फ़िर भी आप राम-कृष्ण की पूजा करते हैं क्योंकि वो आपके कल्चरल हीरोस हैं : यानि कि आप शुद्ध ढकोसला करते हैं । हाँ, इस तरह का बहुदेवतावाद और मूर्तिपूजा (ढोंग) आपको बेहद पसन्द ज़रूर है क्योंकि ये आपको "अलग" साबित करता है । और ये आपके यहाँ तक पसन्द है कि आप वेद, परमेश्वर, परमात्मा, ब्रह्म, उपनिषद, सबको हिन्दू धर्म से बाहर फ़ेंक देना चाहते हैं और गाँव के अनपढ़ हिन्दुओं के रीति रिवाज़ों को ही शुद्ध हिदू धर्म मानते हैं । अब बात आई बहुदेवतावाद की : इसमें कोई गड़बड़ी नहीं है । मैं शुद्ध बहुदेवतावाद को भी हिन्दू धर्म का एक हिस्सा मानता हूँ : पर क्यों? क्योंकि ये एक आस्तिक दर्शन : मीमांसा पर आधारित है । मीमांसा के अपने तर्क हैं : fine with me, except that I found other logics to be better. और अगर आपने नोट न किया हो, तो मैंने ख़ुद ही देवताओं वाले भाग में आदर के साथ ये टिप्पणी डाली है । स्वाध्यायी के साथ समस्या "अँग्रेज़ी भाषा" और semantics की थी, और भाषा के मामले में मैं बहुत particular हूँ । मुझे आपके जवाब का इंतज़ार होगा । An English translation of the preceding Hindi message can be requested from me, if needed. Cygnus_hansa 14:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Swadhyayee, I am NOT against polytheism or idol worship. It is very much a part of Hinduism and my last three sentences should have made it clear. I respect all personal beliefs. I am only against Aupmanyav, who is trying to push Hinduism only in one direction (i.e., his personal interpretation). I respect his belief, which is also mine, that Hinduism is a flowing river of thoughts, too wide and diverse to be bound. But my point is that there is also a sense of unity which causes the harmony: and that unity is in the basis, which is Vedas. And Aupmanyav simply gets p***ed off whenever I try to make that point. My belief is that Hinduism thoughts should be taken by its philosophy (and I recognize ALL points which can come under it). Aupmanyav (and yours probably) is that the beliefs should be based on what illiterate villages have been doing so far. And idolatry has no basis in the Vedas: no idols, no temples, no icons have been mentioned. The only ceremonies were the fire-sacrifices. But still I respect anyone's belief, because Hinduism is broad and diverse. I am just against some people actually trying to uproot the basis itself and trying to call what is left Hinduism. And again, I don't consider Ram/Krishna as only cultural heroes, it is Aupmanyav who does that: this was a misreading on your part. And this is a talk page and I have freedom to express what I believe. And you actually missed the main point: that I am very particular about language, its semantics, meanings and connotations; and I have even done a PhD level course in linguistics and will do another course next semester in Historical Linguistics, whereas I guess you have never studied linguistics. So you actually are not able to grasp what I am talking about. When concepts from one language get translated from another, the whole thing comes under purview of linguistics. That is why my stress in using direct Sanskrit words, with approximate meanings in brackets, rather than British-given terms.Cygnus_hansa 16:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I second swadhyayee on the unnecessary incivility of this debate. I think it helps if one is familiar with basic wikipedia policies and guidelines in this regard, namely,  No personal attacks,  Be Civil and  Assume Good Faith. Also it would help if everyone followed these talk page guidelines (see in particular, 'Be concise', 'Use English', 'Don't change your text' and 'Stay objective') and realized that the Hinduism page is not owned by any one editor, viewpoint or even by 'Hindus' collectively.  Abecedare 17:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will third that, please be civil and No personal attacks. This will get us nowhere. — Seadog 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Magicalsaumy|Cygnus_Hansa, I do not have hindi fonts on my computer at present, otherwise I would have replied to you in the language that you have used. Further more, it is late in night today, so expect my reply tomorrow. What I would like to say that I am a hindu, close to the roots, whereas you seem to me like a laboratory produced synthetic hindu. The latter are many a times more vocal but there are more like me in India. Lastly, there was no need to use Hindi here since you have an English translation of the post, that would have been understood by everybody here. You are a linguist, you say you are very particular about language, my grandfather also was (did I tell you about that, he wrote the latest smriti, Vishweshwarasmriti, in 1947 with 8,000 verses, of course, Sanskrit), but you should not have made a mishmash of Hindi, Urdu, and English words in the message. If it was Hindi, it should have been good Hindi. What you wrote would get you a d-grade in an examination. Clearly Hindi is not your mother toungue. Aupmanyav 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I certainly regret having made personal attacks, but I just couldn't help it. You can understand, I spent 2 hours typing in Devanagari on such a day when the immediate next week is that of the final examinations. This certainly means that I felt compelled to do so. This also means that I'll be mostly not commenting here till my exams end. Cygnus_hansa 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'claim to honour/revere hindu beliefs expounded in Vedas/Upnishads and simultaneously abhor idol worship and consider Ram & Krishna as cultural heroes than incarnation of God.' Aupmanyav 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Swadhyayee, what Magicalsaumy says here is correct. It is my personal view. (1) I do honor the beliefs expounded in Vedas/Upanishads (2) I do not abhor idol worship. That is Magicalsaumy's view. My view is that idol worship has been a part of hinduism since times immemorial, a majority of hindus worship idols, there should be no shame or guilt in accepting that before the westerners, there is no need to camoflage the fact, it helps the mind to concentrate on one thing. (3) I am an atheist, brahmavadin. Even if I do not consider Rama and Krishna as Gods, they are very close to me because I believe that the idea of Rama and Krishna unites all hindus and gives them strength in time of distress. But I do not mix my personal views with what is to be presented in Wikipedia. That is why you find me, an atheist, championing the cause of idol worship and polytheism. I do this because that is what majority of hindus do that and at one time, I also used to do. I hope people will understand this. Aupmanyav 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The bot does not understand that Aupmanyav has never given an unsigned message. Aupmanyav 03:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The second request Swadhyayee has made, I cannot undo because Aupmanyav has already made a confession in the favor of it. Cygnus_hansa 06:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cygnus_Hansa, I am not against it and I am not very quick with computers. There are other things at home as well (last night it was my grand-daughters eleventh birthday, we returned home only at 12 in the night). But in defference to Swadhyayee's wishes and as an atonement to the anguish that it may have caused to you, I have crossed out the offending portion. Aupmanyav 06:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No apologies required, you have only made it clearer. I do not have anger, which is a useless emotion. Thanks and Regards. Aupmanyav 18:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: note to all - Instead of long rants and counter-arguing and nonsense, why not add to the Mimamsa Sutra page? I created it three months back and am certain I made the only edit to that page. In fact all three of you (aupmanyav, cygnus, swadhyayee) should perhaps take some time off the main hinduism page and work on the other pages. Do you want one shaky tower (the main article)? or do you guys want a large and even educational experience on Hinduism? The fact is that the main article should link to a bunch of pages. Those pages, rather than the main article, should be improved on.Bakaman 01:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Baka, I have been here for the last eight months and I have not been able to proceed more than two or three paragraphs in Hinduism or Hindu page. I suppose I would be able to go to the page on Mimamsa Sutra only in my next incarnation. The stumbling blocks for me have been 1. Hinduism is exclusively Vedic. 2. Hinduism is exclusively monotheistic. I am still at it. Aupmanyav 06:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with English 

message: Namaste. Please see this discussion, and let us conclude upon an agreed phrasing and title; both had been questioned, and discussed upon, but only philosophically, and without enough proposals on actual phrasing for the article. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 16:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My short suggestion: (1) The title can be changed to "Concept of God", (2) The leading sentence can be rephrased neutrally as "Hinduism is sometimes referred to as a polytheistic religion, but that is not true for all its schools of thought whose beliefs range from polytheism to monotheism, or even monism and atheism. For instance, Advaita Vedanta holds that there is  One God, who however may appear to humans in multiple names and forms." (3) The sub-sections "Brahman", "Ishvara" etc should be greatly shortened and the details moved to a separate article. Abecedare 17:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the Brahman, Ishvara, Deva/Devi and Avatar sections should all be merged into one. A lot of the Ishvara and Deva/devi section actually overlap anyway. GizzaChat © 00:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please don't merge the sections. I'll try to remove the overlapping part soon. And the preceding reformulation is most welcome, provided you can put in brackets immediately after atheism "(those who consider Hinduism as ethnicity)". And again and again, there is no need to mention Advaitism. Even I am against mentioning is everywhere despite my inclination towards it. Cygnus_hansa 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviving discussion on brahman phrasing 

message: Throughtout the article various spellings used for concepts, devas etc. Eg. Sometimes "Ishvara" is written in IAST - iśvara. There are many of these all over the article. We need to have a standard method of writing Hindu terms. I prefer removing the diacritics and symbols because most people don't understand them. Hence Purānas goes to Puranas, Ṛiṣhis (which is wrong anyway, it should be Ṛṣis) goes to Rishis, pūjā goes to puja. What does everyone think? GizzaChat © 02:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gizzaji, we tried it once and once I did heavy amount of work correcting. But new people come, don't read guidelines, and type texts in the easy way.Cygnus_hansa 02:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once everyone agrees and a standard system is established, we'll convert all the words. If an anon uses or changes the transliteration, we'll revert it. Simple. First we must have a discussion on which transliteratoin scheme should be used. GizzaChat © 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support this idea. I think we can specify the pronunciation using IPA (or even IAST) the first time the term is used and then stick with a "standardized" spelling. Same goes for wikilinking the terms. Abecedare 02:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Pronunciation is best specified by IPA, but there are many anti-IPA people here. So we might just go for IAST. Cygnus_hansa 07:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the possibilities are listed Here. The main two are IAST (example:Pāṇini) and simplified tranliteration, which are how most articles are named. These were the two types that I was talking about. GizzaChat © 08:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you saying articles names have be in simplified but words inside articles should be IAST? That is almost how it is now. A third possibility is using informal transliteration, which would be most identifiable by the average Indian. Eg. Bhagavad Gita goes to Bhagavad Geeta and small "a"s are dropped off, so "Shiva" becomes "Shiv." However, as the name suggests it is informal so we can probably take it out of the equation. There is also ITRANS, where Gita becomes gItA! GizzaChat © 07:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look in the third paragraph, puranas and ramayana are squares.  This is easily corrected by using the IAST template {{IAST|puranas....  I just don't want the squares.  Now for the article ex Pāṇini.  I see sqaures at the very very top of that article (the title).  I think the page should just be moved to Panini.  that's all i'm saying.--D-Boy 08:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You'd be interested in reading this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic)--D-Boy 11:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variation in Romanisation