Talk:Hinduism/Archive 22

message: Is the custom of a Death anniversary observed in Hinduism, as it is in East Asia and in Vietnam? Badagnani (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, kinda yes. See Shraadh. It is a similar practice.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help at [[Death anniversary]] 

message: I would like to add an external link to Project Gutenberg's Hinduism Bookshelf.
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Hinduism_%28Bookshelf%29
Thanks,
--Sankarrukku 14:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the comparative study link by "J. Murray Mitchell and William Muir". It is in effect a coparative study by a Christian missionary. The Christian missionaries try their best to write thousands of biased articles and discussion on hinduism and put it all over internet. They ignore 1000s of issues in Christianity that defy intellect and reason both and will discuss issues in Hinduism which are still very close to best possible reason and philosophy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.7.175.2 (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Project Gutenberg - Hinduism Bookshelf 

message: Greetings, friends. I have come to Wikipedia after a long time. I see a much improved article on Hinduism and it pleases me to no ends. I congratulate the people who have brought it to this stage.
The above line, however, disturbs me. Hinduism is a mix of Aryan thought and the beliefs of other peoples of India. Today we are worshiping Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Durga, Ganesha, Murugan. These are not Aryan Gods. More people are into Bhakti than in Yajnas.
That is why we should not under-rate the contribution of Indian people other than Aryans to hinduism. I would, therefore, like the above sentence to be corrected. Hinduism is not solely out of Vedas. Aupmanyav 18:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I dont think you should equate Vedas as Aryans.  And secondly, "grew out of" in no way implies "solely." --Blacksun 13:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Makes sense. I agree with Blacksun. Thanks.Kanchanamala 04:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you do not mention what else hinduism grew out from (apart from Vedas), then you are not stating the full story. Any reason for hiding the facts or feeling shy of stating it? Would you associate Vedas with regions other than North-West India including perhaps Western UP? Did the beliefs of these regions not contribute to hinduism? Aupmanyav 13:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Modern Hinduism grew out of the Vedas' 

message: Why is everyone mistating the Veda and Upanishad by calling Brahman, God?  The name is Brahman, not God.  Calling him God speaks of some ulterior motive, perhaps seeking acceptance from the West?MPA 20:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree to what you say MPA (I follow the 'not God' theory), we cannot generalise. Brahman/Brahmanaspati/Prajapati was visualised as supreme God as well as a universal substrate, both. Aupmanyav (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: God is an appropriate term.Bakaman 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can get around this dilemma by saying Brahman is impersonal God. GizzaDiscuss © 11:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "God" Doesn't Exist in Hinduism 

message: How come there isn't any information on the beatles and hinduism on this page?  I am disappointed, because I know the beatles went to india and did something with hunduism.  I know george harrison used a scimitar which is an Indian insturment, also there are several Magi on sergant peppers... does anyone have any more info on this?? Commodorepat (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three Wiki-policy/guideline pagelinks should answer your question. WP:SS, WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIV. GizzaDiscuss © 11:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not notable enough. A scimitar is a sword. He used a sitar. See Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Paul B 11:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Beatles and Hinduism 

message: The text "Another theory, is that Hindus believe that god comes in different forms." was added by User:Shaanm, with the comment
:dont delete this! You guys only use a European view. This is an interpreation[sic] from an Eastern view. This is not vandalism.
I personally don't see that this adds anything that has not already been said. However, this guy's earnestness makes me think that for him it either:
*it has some subtle meaning that was not conveyed in the rest of the text, or
*that the rest of the text was not clear enough for him to see that what he has written has already been said. 
I have looked and the only thing that I can think of is that this article does not explicitly state that in Advaita Vedanta God may appear in many forms. I have therefore added the sentence "Brahman may appear to people in various different forms or Ishvara, for example Vishnu, Krishna or Shiva".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q Chris (talk • contribs) 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another theory, is that Hindus believe that god comes in different forms. 

message: God is an English word, Allah Arabic, and Khuda Farsi. Why should the use of the word God bother if it is used in an article on Hinduism when that article is written in English? The writer can always include the Indian word which the word God is intended to mean. Would we hesitate to use the words Allah or Khuda if the article on Hinduism were to be written in Arabic or Farsi? In my Rampur edition of the Qur'an in Hindi, Hindu words are freely used while referring to Allah. When it comes to a language as a means of communication, let us avoid bigotry. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 14:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  God and Hinduism 

message: "A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking that follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly appear needlessly on the viewer's screen."
Thus i removed repeat links. Somebody added them again. Also links should be added at first occurence, not at second  as was done for Mahavira and Buddha.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlinking 

message: As i said before, Why have the conversion section in Hinduism article when FA Islam or fa Sikhism doesn't discuss it? The matter in the Conversion section can be shifted to Religious conversion. IMO the topic is not so significant to be discussed in main Hinduism article. Thus initiating a vote to check what others feel to form WP:CON:
* Write Keep if you feel the section should remain in the article
* Write Remove if you feel that the section should be removed from article.
Please remb to sign. The vote period is 15 days ending on 04:18, 28 December 2007. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion vote

message: * Remove --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: Place any comments (if you feel, optional) to justify vote here:
* it is a useful section. Among people coming to this article for academic interest there will be those who feel that Hinduism is part of their spiritual path. Since there is a "fairly common misconception" that no Hindu groups allow people who are not Hindu, I think it is useful to have the different attitudes described. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments