Talk:Hinduism/Archive 8

message: This could help the length problem and even more importantly, help make table of contents shorter.  It is definitely something that is criticised and their is quite a few arguments against those criticisms too.  At the same time, their is a chance that it would end up being longer.  I can make a sandbox for it and post here if people want me to spend effort on it.  Feedback please.  Also, constructive criticism on what more can be cut back on would be helpful.  I already feel very bad about taking out the "maya" concept but then again it probably would not make much sense to a newbie in the form it was. (Blacksun 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merger agreed.Cygnus_hansa 19:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Hindu Nationalism with Criticism?

message: oooh think some of you can spend your time to find a replacement image for the "brahman boy" image on the article?  I can't find anything and that is up for deletion (soon).(Blacksun 06:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need a replacement image 

message: Now that I am back after registering my replies to some nasty messages in Talk:Hindu page, I pick up the gauntlet about describing Hinduism as a 'religious tradition based on Vedas'. Somebody has a big mental block about Hinduism being Aryan only and not acknowledging the contribution of the thousands of traditions of the other inhabitants of India. Would the people who insist on this description, please tell me whether the Aryan religious concepts were accepted in toto by the people of India or there was some give and take? If there was some, what was given and what was taken? Why have people accepted this errorenous description of Hinduism? I am looking forward to some answers to my querries? Changes, of course, after discussion.
'Vedic Religion: Modern Hinduism grew out of the knowledge described in the Vedas.' My perennial complaint. How can you take hinduism to belong to Aryans only, knowing well that all their Gods were replaced by Gods foreign to them. Why is somebody intent on discounting the influence of indigenous thought in Hinduism?
No horse was killed in 'Ashvamedha', it had become symbolic even in the RigVedic time. Aupmanyav 07:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence do you have for your last statement? Paul B 11:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Even in Valmiki's Ramayana, there are explicit descriptions about Queen Kaushalya slaughering the sacrificial horse by three trokes of sword on his neck (Ashvamedha yagya). Please see the Griffith's translation of Ramayana. If you know Sanskrit, please compare it with the original Sanskrit words, so that you have no reason to complain.Cygnus_hansa 08:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That was not the main point here. It is 'Hinduism is a religious tradition based on Vedas'. That has not been answered. About Ashwamedha, I am searching and hope to come back to you with what I get. What Tilak says is that it was conducted during the Ati-Ratra (the long arctic night) when the sun was imprisoned or the cows (dawns) were abducted by the dasas, Vritra, etc. The Vedic priests tried to fortify the horse (Indra's or Sun's, I do not know yet), so that either Indra may reach the cave early or the sun could come back early. Normally the process would entail yagna, that is putting fat and havisha (herbs) in the sacrificial fire, nice aroma. It was a Soma ceremony (what does that mean, boozing?). True, sub-arctic nights were cold. Read somewhere that even in Vedic times it was symbolic, just like Nachiketa returning to life after being sacrificed, or Purusha's sacrifice. But I know you would not be satisfied with just that. Aupmanyav 16:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious tradition based on Vedas - Some mental block 

message: What I understand of Hinduism is that 'Dharma' and 'Personal Belief' were clearly bifurcated. The sages understood that what is important is the way we act in the society. So no moving away from Dharma and the concept of three debts, etc. There is no harm in different people having different personal beliefs. This is freedom of thought, helps us to go further, and removes of conflicts (the Vaishnavites and Shaivites did some time indulge in it). This was, I would say, a well-planned strategy and available only in Hinduism. Even Buddhism ties you to Buddha-mind. Any views? Aupmanyav 12:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple—Hinduism is amorphous.Cygnus_hansa 07:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Amorphous, if it happened by itself. What I maintain is that Hinduism arrived at this consciously after weighing all pros and cons. Aupmanyav 11:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Hinduism Amorphous or 'well thought out'. 

message: Why should we do that when Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs do not want this. Why impose ourselves on them. Even the Constitution says that they are Hindus 'only in law', but 'not in religion'. If they are to be considered Hindus, then show the number of Hindus at 900 million + 376 million + 23 million + 4 million = 1,303 million. That would be gratifying, why count Hindus only at 944 million as in the article (figures from www.adherents.com). The correct things to say would be that Hindus do not consider Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs any different from themselves; and philosophy and many beliefs are common. Nobody can have objection to that. What we think is our choice. Your views? Aupmanyav 12:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter-productive (refer to all Indic Religions under one umbrella). 

message: The following statement is from Bakker. H., "The Challenge of Churchless Christianity: An Evangelical Assessment", International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 29, p. 179, 2005.
'A peculiar manifestation of this belief is evident amongst some Hindus who accept foreign beliefs but still identify themselves as followers of Hinduism.'
This is a biased statement and should not be included in the Hinduism page. What does the author mean? Do these hindus accept Jesus as their sole savior and as SON of God? Which God? Shiva, Rama, Krishna? Not showing disrespect to beliefs of other people is certainly a Hindu trait, but this certainly goes beyond that. Aupmanyav 17:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Missionary Research in Hinduism Page 

message: 'Hinduism does not evangelize as do Christianity and Islam. Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the issue is open to interpretations. [4] That is to say, it rather depends upon the Hindu society whether they consider a non-Hindu, who has got a dīkṣhā into a Hindu sect, as a Hindu or not.'
This is a fallacious statement. The link (Jha, Dwijendra N. "Looking for a Hindu Identity". Pages 10, 39, 40) does not contain anything against conversion. On the countrary, it mentions 'Vratyasoma' rite by which non-Aryans could be converted to Aryans. The Arya Samaj has the 'Shuddhikaran' rite with which it has converted thousands of non-Hindus to Hinduism. In Sanatan tradition there is no bar at all. No one can dispute the statement of a person that he accepts the wisdom he found in the hindu scriptures or stop the person from worshipping any of the hindu Gods, and there are a lot of Shiva or Krishna worshippers who were formerly non-Hindus. Aupmanyav 04:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See--the problem lies not in the Hindu religion, but in the mindset of the Indian peoples. A huge, huge majority of the Hindu population will never accept a white-skinned foreigner who has converted into a Hindu sect as a proper Hindu. For them he will always be a non-Hindu. As for indigenous Indian person who is a Buddhist, Jain, converted Muslim, etc., the population will accept his conversion to Hinduism because the Hindus believe that "originally there was only Hinduism"; hence his conversion would simply mean embracing back the faith once forsaken. This idea is stronger in Hindutva, who think that in the whole world, originally there was only Hindusim. Many Hindu temples (like Kashi Vishwanath Temple of Varanasi) do  not allow white-skinned foreigners to enter; one can haggle with the chief priest that he "has converted into Hinduism", but in vain.Cygnus_hansa 08:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Raj: This page is for all Hindus, not just for Smartas among whom I have some dear friends. Please enlighten me on what basis a Smarta will object to someone who considers himself/herself a Hindu to worship Shiva or Krishna, or the study of scriptures? All descendents of Satrap, Greek, Kushan, or Buddhist kings converted to Hinduism in history. Of course, a conversion to Hinduism should be based on knowledge and understanding, just pouring a tumbler of water on a person's head will not be sufficient. Aupmanyav 03:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear friend, I am not a charvakist, they are long gone. I am an advaitin who believes in 'Sarva Khalvidam Brahma'. With regards, Aupmanyav 11:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Raj: Since I do not believe in 'any other', there is no God for me to worship. 'Kasmai Devaya Havisha Vidhema?'. Shiva, Shakti, and Vishnu are ideas from my culture. Rama and Krishna are my culture heroes. They give my people unity, and from their stories I get guidance for my life. I hope you are not too disappointed. With regards, Aupmanyav 15:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Aupmanyav, you have some misconceptions about Advaitism. There is no Ishwar only if one enters the Transcendental state of reality. In the pragmatic state, Brahman is viewed as Ishwar. Futher more, in the pragmatic level, whenever we are talking about Brahman, we are actually talking about God (Ishwar). Sarva Khalvidam Brahma applies only to the Transcendental state.Cygnus_hansa 08:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Friends, I might have reached the transcendental state of reality for all you know! But that does not concern this article. That is why I replied to Raj on his talk page. True, half-baked advaitins would recognize 'Ishwara', and full-baked ones would accept it for their sake. Aupmanyav 11:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Then, dear friend, meditate on the subject. But you too are entitled to your opinion. 'Jaki rahi bhavana jaisi, prabhu moorat tin dekhi taisi' (God appears in the way in which you want to see him). Aupmanyav 10:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: All my replies are in good faith. I have not been taught by my family or my religion to be disrespectful to others (Tejasvinaam Navadheetamastu - May our deliberations be brilliant). You have yourself mentioned that 'Brahman is .. (.. the subject of meditation and not worship), it is a concept even beyond God.' Accepting God is only half of the journey. You have to complete the other half. Regards. Aupmanyav 04:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu Evangelism 

message: Please tell me of a single instance where the word 'dalit' is mentioned in Shruti or Smriti. All present-day dalits belong to some caste, except the avarnas/Chandalas of history whom Manu described as 'fruit of adultery, incest and crime'. I cannot fault Manu for being tough on Chandalas, he was a law giver. He can be excused for creating stiff laws in the interest of orderliness. If the sociologist uses the word 'dalit' for disadvantaged castes, it is understandable. The word has also been used by clever politicians, christian missionaries and muslims, who claim to be their saviors and to sow dissension in Hindu soceity. The word is not from any Hindu scripture and we should not use it. Aupmanyav 10:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is never mentioned that Hindu scriptures use such a word. Its entirely a sociological construct, and has been presented as such. And there is no Manu who wrote any book. Its only later Brahmins who wrote a book under his name. See Manusmriti. Cygnus_hansa 08:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly what I say. Word 'dalit' should not be used. Instead use 'untouchables'. Why should we koetoe christians, muslims, and unscrupulous politicians in calling a part of our society as 'dalits'. They had their place in society, of course, certain norms were followed while interacting with twice-borns. The attrocities happened only in recent history when the British-backed 'zamindars' mostly in Bengal exploited them for labour and appropriated their lands. Appropriation of land of these people was possible with the institution of Numberdars and regulations of British-instituted legal system. Aupmanyav 10:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Things like "should be" and "must be" have no place in wikipedia.Cygnus_hansa 10:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dalit should be mentioned in Wikipedia only with reference to sociology and not in reference to castes. As I mentioned, the word 'dalit' does not belong to Hindu scriptures and you agreed to it. Aupmanyav 14:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'a class of outcastes—Dalits—outside the Varṇa Vyavasthā' 

message: 'Kṛiṣhṇa’s incarnation was preceded by Lord Rāma’s, sometimes dated at over 5-6000 BCE, or even more than a million years ago in the Tretā Yuga according to the Rāmāyaṇa Epic. Many Hindus believe that their religious tradition was fully formed by the time of Lord Rāma, the seventh incarnation of Lord Viṣhṇu. Modern Indology dates the roots of Hinduism to about 1500-1300 BCE, based on linguistic and literary dating of the Ṛig Veda and is supported by Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis. However, the validity of both the dating and the hypothesis is questioned by some nationalist Hindu groups.'
I have objections to the above. There is no reson to mention a date for Rama which would be totally arbitrary. Similary 'the date by which Hinduism was fully formed'. Now what does that mean? Sankara, Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Basaveswara, and even Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Ramana, etc., all left their mark on Hinduism. It is a dynamic religion. Giving dates is useless. Go back as far as you can either in the indigenous thought or in the Aryan thought, there is no beginning, two rivers which later mingled, like the Ganges and the Yamuna. These are aboriginal philosophies. Aupmanyav 11:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also object to giving such ridiculus dates. Lets not mantion any such dates.Cygnus_hansa 07:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, no dates are available, why should we manufacture any. Krishna's date might be on a more solid ground, we still have the Kali Calender. If Harappa is considered to have Hindu elements, Mehrgarh also was similar (they did not find any change in culture), that would take Hinduism back to some 7,000 B.C. This 1,500-1,300 BCE is pure rubbish. RigVeda precedes the time when sun rose in Punarvasu and Avesta mentions ice-age. Why otherwise Aryans would say 'Sacrifice begins and ends in Aditi (Punarvasu)'. These are historical facts. Aupmanyav 10:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Hinduism 

message: 'Though linguists and historians haven't reached a consensus'. I am surprised that there should be a controversy. What other word than 'Sindhu' or Avestan equivalent 'Hendu' gave rise to the word 'Hindu'? The oldest site related to Harappan civilization is Mehrgarh dated at 7,000 B.C. The second paragrph under this heading is totally superflous and could be dispensed with. Aupmanyav 11:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is with some extra-foreigner-hating Hindutvavadis who want to claim that everything is "indigenous" to India, including the word Hindu. So one Hindutvavadi says that the word Hindu comes from two words "Hi" (which means power) and "du" which means two--thus "Hindu" means two powers. Another Hindutvavadi says that Hindu comes from Sanskrit "Indu" (the moons)--hence the lunar race of the Kshatriyas (that of Bharatas, Purus, Kurus, etc).Cygnus_hansa 07:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better if they used the term, "Dharmatva," then there would be no problem! GizzaChat © 08:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry that people weaken their own case by resorting to untruth, which can never win. That is not the way you win a debate. There is nothing wrong with accepting Aryans as immigrants to India. They found compatible people here, both were enriched. And it happened long before any European scholar envisions this to have happened, sometime before 2,500 B.C. Saraswati dried up around 1,900 B.C. Actually it should be taken as a feather in the cap the way Hinduism absorbed Aryans and later many others, parthians, greeks, scythians, kushans, huns, gujjars, ahirs, etc. Islam escaped by a hair-breadth, we had Abdul Rahim Khan-e-Khanan singing praises of Krishna and an azhawr saint (muslim) singing praises of Vishnu. You should never underestimate the power of Hinduism. Things can still happen. My request to such hindutvavadis (I am also one), you do not loose anything by accepting truth. Aupmanyav 10:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I know in Holland, the Hindu community is broadly divided into "Arya Samajis" and "Sanatan Dharmis". People adhering to many other such movements, although call themselves Hindus, differentiate their religious beliefs from Sanatan Dharma. I was wondering whether it is appropriate to call all Hinduism 'Sanatan Dharma.' What do you guys think? deeptrivia (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask Arya Samajis, they would also say that their belief is 'Sanatan', given by Lord God himself and present in every period of time. The 'Vedas' are not destroyed in 'Pralaya'. And they consider themselves as 'Hindus' (Thank God, unlike some of the Krishnas). So what if they call their 'panth', 'Arya Samaj'. Let an 'Arya Samaji' explain his point. Aupmanyav 06:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is true in India, at least if you look at the literal meaning of the term. It just  happens to be that literal meanings get lost fast, and at least in some countries like Holland and Suriname, "Arya Samaji"s define themselves in contrast to "Sanatan Dharmi"s. deeptrivia (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, as always, if you can source it, discuss it (this article could do with a proper "terminology" section). dab (ᛏ) 07:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is their wish if the 'Arya Samajis' would like to be considered Hindus or not. Perhaps Buddha and Nanak also did not mean it that way. What did we do when their followers broke away from us? Other religions have also experienced similar break-ups. The 'Arya Samajis' have the same freedom. Hindus would reckon the contribution of Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati in these terms. Was he one who strengthened Hinduism or caused a partition. Aupmanyav 06:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: btw, are you sure of the long u in "Hindū Dharma"? ū-stems are extremely rare, and while there is a (late) Sanskrit hindu, there is no hindū. Is the ū correct in Hindi? dab (ᛏ) 10:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hindu is spelled with a long ū in Hindi, and with short u in Sanskrit. That why in the introductory para I have mentioned Sanskrit/Hindi. Sanskrit uses the terminology Hindu in rarest of the rare cases, and hence the name proper is a Hindi word.Cygnus_hansa 15:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism vs. Sanatan Dharma 

message: Please shorten the unnecessary long and emotional criticism and its replies section.Cygnus_hansa 07:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I am very unhappy with the blind cleanup. Many important sentences that should have been there are lost. Some such sentences I am readding. Also, I don't like the excuse that "there is an entire separate article on ....". This is an essay on Hinduism, not a collection of links and phrases which direct to hundreds of info pages but itself contains no proper information. Cygnus_hansa 17:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this is most certainly not an "essay" on Hinduism. WP doesn't do essays. And yes, in view of the (at times insane) length of this article, Wikipedia:Summary style is the way to go. There is more than enough room for any amount of brilliant prose in the sub-articles. dab (ᛏ) 10:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: feel free - i have mostly washed my hands from this article as I am not a scholar and have quickly realized that can be a handicap when dealing with multiple POV's (not to mention stressfull).  Just be ready to defend it if anyone has problems with its large size. --Blacksun 20:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readditions 

message: You also must have wondered at the phenomena. All the major Gods in Hinduism are dark. Shiva, Vishnu, Rama, Krishna. Ganesha, though he is mostly shown as fair, but the elephants head indicates he also should be taken as dark and so are Parvati, Kali and so many other godesses. Only Brahma and the lesser Gods may be fair. Does that tell a story? Aupmanyav 16:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Durga is an important goddess and she is quite fair.--SohanDsouza 11:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all God has no color or skin. Furthermore the deities Parvati, Durga (under the epithet Gauri), Ganesha, Rama, etc are fair, though traditionally Rama is shown in blue. And that tells no story, because the Vedic deities did not have solid anthropomorphic forms, they only appear as blurred spirits--manifestations of natural forces and the language describing them is highly metaphorical. Only in Puranic times, after Jains and the Buddhists had started worshipping idols of Buddha and mahavira, the Hindus also imitated them and started making well-formed idols and giving them exact descriptions and color. Cygnus_hansa 01:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In reality, Shiva is fair-skinned who has a blue neck due to the poison he took. Though Rama are Krishna are dark, their female counterpart Sita and Radha are both fair. Devi, the sumprme goddess in Shaktism is fair. Ganesha's elephant head is pink/yellow so it probably indicates that he is fair, like the rest of his body. The Vedic gods are all fair and they are still worshipped to a lesser extent. GizzaChat © 03:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The common modern representation of the gods is not necessarily how they were originally thought of, or how they were originally shown. There has been an increase in seeing fair colour as 'good' in the subcontinent, over the centuries. See the article on Krishna and changes in how he has been represented. Marco Polo said of south Indians 'they show gods and their idols as black and their devils white' (Marco Polo, The Travels). It would be wrong to assume that modern prejudices existed in other times. Imc 16:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The religion of dark Gods 

message: At most it, should be a paragragh.  Not 3 paragraphs. --Dangerous-Boy 18:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made it shorter. Christianity has a criticism section, Islam and Judaism don't, but all should be handled the same way. There should only be a short summary and a link to the Criticism article. --Sendrin 23:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section is way too long 

message: I heard you cannot convert to Hinduism and that you must be born into it.  But what is to stop someone from becoming Hindu?  How can you tell someone, "Your not Hindu, becasue you were not born into it.  You do everything a Hindu must do, but you still are not one"?
:Everyone is Hindu.  Even bible thumpers. :-)--Dangerous-Boy 18:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends upon the contemporary Hindu soceity whether they consider a converted non-Hindu as a Hindu or not. There is no general "yes" or "no".Cygnus_hansa 19:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not correct that you cannot convert to Hinduism. We would certainly like that you to have studied and believe in the teachings, foremost (if you would like to believe in a God/Gods) that He does not play favourites and it rewards all good people absolutely equally and that you should not snigger at the belief of other people but try to understand them; and that you would search for truth and follow it unhesitatingly. It is the simplest procedure in the world, just say yes to yourself, no baths, no circumcision. In case of any problem, contact me, I will adopt you to give you a Veda mentioned, twice born, venerated lineage (gotra), after which nobody would be able to object (otherwise also, if you have studied about Hinduism, it is equal to a new birth). Bible and Qur'an thumpers are not Hindus because their philosophy is exclusive. Aupmanyav 10:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion? 

message: Vasanas is currently listed at Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year.  I suspect someone who watches this page might be able to write at least a stub on this topic.  If you can, please do (and delete the topic from the various requested articles pages it appears on). Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing article 

message: in case you didn't know, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Peer review has been created.  please start suggesting articles for it. --Dangerous-Boy 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Peer review]] 

message: the Wikipedia:Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week is now created.  feel free to use it. --Dangerous-Boy 19:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week]] 

message: You may upload important and high quality pictures at Wikimedia Commons.
Also, Try to make more and more good quality Hinduism related pictures as Featured Pictures by submitting them here.
You may support or oppose Featured picture candidates by voting here. - Holy Ganga 20:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism related '''Featured Pictures''' 

message: Trying to a get a concensus on this.  Your input is appreciated.  I'm trying to move the naming and transliteration formating to  Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vedic).--Dangerous-Boy 08:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy with moving this out, and including this within the other naming conventions. But why use the term Vedic? The application of these formal transliteration schemes is normally to all transliteration that is part of scholarly study. That would include most religious writing, myth, and also historical works, hence a much wider field than that generally implied by Vedic. I'm not sure of the best term, but an alternative that comes to mind immediately is 'Indic'.  Imc 20:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was afraid Buddhists would get offended if I named it to Indic. The 4 vedic religions are Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism.  That's why i named it that.  They always try to be seperate.  I was trying to promote some kind of coordination on all four.--Dangerous-Boy 11:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's being merged with Indic now.--Dangerous-Boy 06:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming and transliteration to  [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vedic)]] 

message: Nice new pictures but really dont forget to cite things when you make claims like "oldest", "second richest" etc.  And please use good citations - not random sites. --Blacksun 19:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: I feel that the title should be 'The four pursuits of life' instead of 'The four objectives of life'. Minor play of words but makes a difference I suppose.
Moreover, I have also added another interpretetion about the pursuits which is as follows:
Another perspective on these (i.e. dharma, artha, kama, moksha) is that arth and kama are to be pursued like a river which is bounded by dharma and moksha on the two sides.
:That is a very good analogy, thanks, but not one which we could include in the article, it would increase length. Aupmanyav 04:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectives or Pursuits? 

message: I have objections to the following statement in etymology: 'Until about 19th century the term Hindu implied a culture and ethnicity and not a religion. When the British government started periodic censuses and established a legal system, the need arose to define Hinduism as a distinct religion, along the lines of Christianity or Islam. Some scholars, such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak, defined it as a religion based on the Vedas, using the analogy of the Bible being the basis of Christianity and the Qur'an being the Muslim scripture.'
There is no reason why (the hell) all people in India after 8th or 10th Century when muslims had established their suzerainty in parts of India, would be known as Hindus. This statement is fallacious and only warms the hearts of the Hindutvavadis (I am also one of them, but do not go this far in absurdity). It is already mentioned in the opening paragraph that Hinduism is also known as 'Vaidika Dharma', there is no need to repeat the last line in etymology. The biblical or the quranic analogy is so very inadequate. Vedas are Hinduism, but Hinduism is not just Vedas. Hinduism is already defined in the opening paragraph. My suggestion is to remove the whole paragraph. It only adds to the length of the article. I would like to know what other readers think about it. There has been unnecessary controversy about all people being known as Hindus, let us avoid it. Aupmanyav 10:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Move the paragraph to History of Hinduism. --Dangerous-Boy 08:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at the following which appears in Etymology: "According to Historical linguistics, Proto-Indo-Iranian / *s / is preserved in the Indo-Aryan languages (including Sanskrit as / s /) but was changed to / h / in prevocalic position in the Iranian branch (including Avestan and Old Persian); see also Indo-European sound laws." It sort of stops the flow. Is it really necessary? Would not people understand this without technicalities. IMHO, this could be removed. I would request Cygnus_hansa and Dangerous_Boy, especially, who might be interested in this to give their opinion. Aupmanyav 11:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly support keeping this fact in place and oppose its removal. Even if it stops the flow, it is a fact, which gives a good explanation of the name. Otherwise why the hell should the Sanskrit word Sindhu become Hindu, and governed by what laws? And this is not the Simple English encyclopedia. Here statements then and there would contain technical jargon, necessary for explanation. If one does not understand them, he is welcome to click on the link to that jargon.Cygnus_hansa 14:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology again 

message: This doesn't affect this article as such, but I'm hoping for a third-party look at the International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness article which, by use of the Hinduism temp[late, claims to be part of Hinduism.
Sfacets 04:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's arguable. Without a doubt they stem from Hindu traditions, and just about fall within the (necessarily) loose definition of Hinduism as 'Relgion originating India, excluding Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism'. Prabhupada wasn't keen on the term 'Hindu' though (although he seems to have wavered on this), and some Hindus feel the movement is too far removed from what they know as Hinduism to be included. For my part, I think it probably should be, but it's not a simple question... --Oolong 13:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Religions are what their adherents make it. Time will decide if they want to be hindus or not. Aupmanyav 04:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can Hare Krishnas be considered Hindus?

message: I would like to suggest that the spelling of Yuga should be Yug, as it is pronounced with no emphasis on G. Also name of lord Ram should be spelt as Ram and not Rama as it is pronounced normally since Ram is also pronounced without any emphasis on M. This is true for most of the sanskritn words spelt in English.
Please let me know if this can be considered !
Best Regards
Gurudatt 13:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let it be, Guru. M in RAma does not have an enlongated sound, but it is not 'halanta' (half sound) either. Aupmanyav 04:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The transliterations in this articles are from direct Sanskrit, and not from Hindi. In Modern Hindi, the last vowel of राम which is called the schwa // (हिन्दी : अ ) is not pronounced. But in Sanskrit IT IS PRONOUNCED. Hence the spelling of Rama should be Rāma. In Hindi it would be Rām. So the Sanskrit names in this articles must continue as such. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vedic). Cygnus_hansa 20:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spellings in the articles 

message: 'Smartism, in contrast, believes in all religions being the same and leading to a pantheistic God'. All religions or all denominations of Hinduism? Was Sankara aware of the exclusivism of Abrahamic religions? Do the present-day Smartas agree to the view above? Read the differences between Hinduism and Christianity as mentioned by Chandrashekharendra Saraswati Swamigal at http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part2/chap3.htm. He also said 'All troubles in this world start only when attempts are made to wean away people from their native religion to convert them to a new faith, by holding out the temptation that people can attain salvation only if they embrace that new faith' (http://www.kamakoti.org/acall/ac-godisone.html). In view of that can we say that Hinduism and Christianity or Islam are same? Is it not Adharma? Aupmanyav 12:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Swamigal said 'All knowledge is from Vedas, so all religions are from Vedas'. But perhaps Abrahamic religions faltered somewhere. Aupmanyav 17:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need clarification on Smartism, Denominations. 

message: List of Hindus is up for deletion!--Dangerous-Boy 18:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's crazy! Surely we've got space to list all the world's Hindus here! --Oolong 11:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Hindus]] is up for deletion! 

message: I commented out the following statement: Vaishnavism has 580 million followers, while Shaivism has 220 million followers..
We cannot leave statements needing sourcing in a featured article. Can anybody try to find stats for these? Circeus 03:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adherents.com gives some figures and refers to Encyclopedia Brittanica. Would somebody kindly do the follow-up. Aupmanyav 05:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation required for stats 

message: All new and improved notice board.  It's easier to edit and request.  enjoy!--Dangerous-Boy 20:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Hinduism-related topics notice board]] 

message: Hinduism in western filosophy terms can be considered a: "Panentheistic or Pantheistic and Polytheistic Monism" or "Monistic Polytheism" there's no other ways for describe Hinduism as a Whole, then there are many "ways" like Vishnavism or Shaivism that can be considered forms of Henotheism, Henotheism means preminent devotion to a particular Divinity that can be considered supreme but not excludes the existence of a plurality of Deities, however this supreme God it's part of Brahman (for me the use of Divinity/ies-Deity/ies-God/s-Goddess/es It's indifferent because there's no term to define Braman or The One, the supreme Reality or Divine Energy etc...).
For example this sentence about Smarta in the article about polytheism is completely wrong:
Polytheistic views should be carefully distinguished from religions such as Smarta Hinduism, which present multiple divinities as different aspects of the same God. Rather than being polytheistic, Smarta Hinduism is a form of inclusive monotheism, where many deities are viewed as just different names for the single monotheistic God
This is about have no understanding of what is Monism or what is Brahaman... the terms Monotheism or Inclusive Monotheism are completely wrong and unsuitable and reflects an abramitic point of view. 
Moreover there's a misconception of what is Polytheism... "Hard Polytheism" as described here in Wikipedia and not only here never be existed in the Ellenistic-Roman World (maybe only in the Northern/Germanic World between indo-europeans, with its doctrine of the Ragnarok), even Homerus speaks of "The One" (not with the doctrinal evolution of Neo-Platonism of Late Antiquity) and all greek and hellenistic-roman philosophers had a monistic point of view, and from sources however we know about the diffuse awareness of the existance of a unique reality or divine energy comprehensive all divinities.
So Hard Polytheism is an invention of Monotheism as Idolatry as described by monotheists with their lies and slanders, but this is another topic, I can't argue now.
I have noticed that lately there's a tendency to use the term Monotheism for Hinduism in Wiki and in other contexts and this is very irritant, because is a falsification of what is Hinduism and it's propagated the idea that monotheism is the more evolved form of religiosity, and Hinduism is more acceptable if "sell out" as a "Monotheistic" religion... in fact Monotheism is an involution not an evolution. (Ex. see the paradox of the angels, spiritual beings created by GOD and not divine beings, deities emanated from The One and existed from eternity).
Moreover the crusade against Polytheism "sell out" as a degraded form of religiosity, that in reality never been as described as a plurality of separated divine energies but a plurality of divine beings part of a unique reality or energy.
Hinduism is NOT Monotheism is Monistic Polytheism and also the Hellenistic-Roman Religion and others of the indo-europeans.
Porphyrius, Julian The Great (and not The Apostate) and others  had always defended polytheism or better the Monistic Polytheism from the attacks of the galileans (christians).
  
Greetings
--Antioco79 12:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raj, are you again at it? Two hoots for your traditions, I follow the tradition of my family worshipping Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha, Kartikeya, Durga, Rama, Krishna, Hanuman, Saraswati (whom Sankara forgot to include in the Gods permissible for worship, though he added Kartikeya later). Do I have to be a Smarta or a Madhva to be a hindu? I thought we had discussed this in detail. Returned to the page after a few days and find it changed drastically without discussion. I am a polytheist and a hindu. Who are you to define hinduism for me? For that matter, who are Sankara, Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabhacharya, Chaitanya, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Raman Maharshi, Aurobindo, or the Mutt Heads to define Hinduism for me? I will study the scriptures myself and make my own decisions. What authority any one has to call me a non-hindu. Hindus would keep defining Hinduism in their own individual ways. If you mean a Brahman which includes you and me, then 'it' is not even a God, then 'it' does not need to be worshipped. I do not know which 'one God' you are talking about. Neither Smarta Hinduism, nor Madhva Hinduism, nor even your Ramakrishna Hinduism is the only Hinduism. I would keep on contesting people who would like to fetter Hinduism in any way. Aupmanyav 10:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raj, would you kindly tell me how did the various traditions in Hinduism came about? People were not satisfied with the explanations available to them at that time and came up with their own explanations which were accepted and followed by other people. Sankara's explanation did not satisfy Madhva, Madhva's explanation did not satisfy Ramanuja and so on. This would and aught to keep on happening. Hinduism is not a dead religion. If we were to be attached to only the existant tradition, there would not have been a plethora of traditions in Hinduism. There is nothing wrong with a Hindu being a polytheist. How many to worship and whom is between me and my God/Gods. Nobody can or should interfere in this. Otherwise 'Vipra badhudha vadanti' is meaningless. Aupmanyav 11:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Definition of Hinduism and Against  Abramitic Campaign of the "Galileans"