Talk:Hinduism/Archive 9

message: There are people who are unnecessarily deriving defferent names to current Hindu Dharma. Hindu Dharma is fusion of different philosopies. So you can't say the present Hindu Dharma is same Vedic Dharma.
Also in India legally only Hindu word is accepted not Vedic OR Sanatan. Truthlover 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well? Babub→Talk 15:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not about the letter of the law. It is about Hinduism (syncrectic fusions and everything). It is a fact that Vedic Dharma plays a central role in canonical Hinduism (in so far as the word "canon" applies to the Dharmic concept), even post-Vedantic classical Hinduism does not relegate the Vedas to the background IMHO.Shiva's Trident 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindu is the right word 

message: In the introductory it says that HInduism originated from the Indian SUbontinent...BUt this is not 100% true...Because technically HInduism was partly formed from areas that were once part of India, but are technically not on the Subocontinent...For example parts of Hinduism was established in areas like Iran & Afghanistan, and both Iran and Afghanistan were part of ANCIENT INDIA....Another example is parts of it were formed in BUrma, which used to be part of India, but is not technically part of the INDIAN SUBCONTINENT....So instead of saying it was formed in the Indian subcontinent...It should say Ancient India instead ... ARYAN818 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Aryans and Hindus met in Afghanistan and Uttarapatha (adjoining portions of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan) for the first time. The region had a strong Hindu presence though it might not have been strictly a part of India. Madras and Kurus among others hailed from here. Aupmanyav 06:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It should say ancient India not Indian subcontinent

message: I would suggest that someone to take time to address the following issues:
# Lot of new material has been added in a haphazard manner.  I point to the Tantra section which uses all kinds of terms and information with no references or even wikilinking.
# Their should be a controversy section in the article.  However, any effort to do so has been continuously reverted/deleted or turned into picking on other religions.
# Lot of text has been added without any references.  Examples: "Though historians do not agree on the specific period,", "In contemporary India, caste differences are slowly disappearing with modernization, but occasional tensions and prejudices still remain."  Not a single reference in "Origins of Hinduism" section.  I can keep going - basically, people are more interested in adding information pertaining to their own denomination or view on the matter without worrying about evidence. 
# False references.  The reference by Vanita R. should not even be in the article anymore because all the text that was pertaining to that reference is (for some mysterious reason) no longer present in the article.  That makes me wonder how many other references are still present in the bibliography but without the relevant text?
In its current stage, I believe that the article does not meet FA criteria any longer and is a candidate for a FARC. --Blacksun 22:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hey maybe we can just not have a Hinduism article - after all their can be a main article for every topic in there?  Anyways, I already know your position on this matter.  It is useless to argue anymore about it.  However, as I pointed out, their are various other serious matters with the article. It is not FA quality by a long shot. --Blacksun 04:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Take it out.  Blacksun doesn't like it.--Dangerous-Boy 03:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your input. I believe it is in all of our interest to keep Wikipedia "wikis" tight and concise, as encyclopedia articles should be. Tidying up could be done for the Tantra section but this need not be limited to that section alone; other sections could be tightened up as well. Some valuable guidance for structuring this wiki could be obtained if we compare it with other encyclopedia articles (online or printed) on Hinduism or other religions. Dingodangodongo 08:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Is someone feeling grumpy? --Blacksun 12:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking at the tantra section.  A lot of it should be removed since it's not cited.--Dangerous-Boy 05:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed Tantra section from the article, as it was wikilined at various places and was without any citaions. Also, I have removed unnecessary addition of Bhakti section because with different approachs, Bhakti is present in Adavita, Davita and others. So, I think there is no need to define Bhakti as an alternate culture of worship. Because of the removal of both Tantra and Bhakti sections, now there is no "Alternate culture of worship" section. -  Holy Ganga  talk  11:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious issues in the article

message: Dear Wikipedians,
Among the basic requisites of a quality (and hence, a feature) article is consistency. I notice a lack of consistency in terminology in this article. For example, in some sections of the article, the Rig Veda is referred to as the Rigveda, and vice versa. Similarly, the Bhagavad Gita, in some parts of the article, is spelled as Bhagvad Gita. I also noticed references to Ram (is it equivalent to Rama?)
I highlight only some instances of inconsistencies in spelling. There may be more in the article to the eyes of discerning readers. I therefore suggest that Wikipedians who maintain or edit this site adhere to a fixed set of naming rules. Splashprince 09:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) --Dangerous-Boy 19:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus on Naming Conventions

message: When a statement is introduced into the article, it is recommended that a reliable source (a peer-reviewed article or a published book) is cited to support the statement. I believe this Hinduism article requires a systematic review to ensure that entries in it are substantiated, as far as it is possible. Admittedly, this is certainly not an easy task, but it would contribute to the article's credibility as a source of reference. This is, after all, a feature Wikipedia article and often a first source of reference for Internet users. Splashprince 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this as a problem in all religious topics and is the main reason why most have lost FA status.  This article is heading the same way.  --Blacksun 12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Peer review--Dangerous-Boy 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation and Substantiation

message: The page takes way too long to load... Can somebody archive the older conversations please... -- Lost 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -  Holy Ganga  talk   11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: "It is the oldest existent religion in the world." - As the second sentence in the article, I believe this statement needs qualifying. Previous editions of this article stated that Hinduism was the oldest of the "major world religions." This is more correct, as Hinduism is undoubtedly this. But the question of what constitutes an 'existent religion' is open to interpretation. The religion of the Aboriginal people of Australia is much older than Hinduism, and is still existent. Whether this is a formal 'religion' is debatable, and even the Wikipedia article religion says the definition of the word is not a sharp one. I suggest we go back to the original statement of Hinduism being the oldest of the world's major religions, because this is not dependent on what definition of 'religion' is used. Cheers.
:I believe the above anonymous contributor has a valid point. I hope a credible source is cited to qualify whatever statement is made with regard to the age of this religion. Splashprince 15:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we know that the religion of the Austr aboriginal people is older than Hinduism? Are there records of their practice from those days? I agree though that the original statement is safer..--Pranathi 21:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that both and (and many others) are equally old, right from the dawn of civilization, I would go with the anonymous contributor. Aupmanyav 13:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't like the "oldest religion" statement either.  Too much ambiguity.  If a good reference is not provided, I'm going to change it to something more probably correct like "one of the oldest". Vonspringer 00:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would hardly make sense to assign any beginning dates for evolved religions (those without a founder, and which keep changing with time.) Clearly, some beliefs can be traced back to the beginning of civilisation itself (possibly, even earlier if we think of primates, which too have some ethical codes.), certainly (in case of Hinduism) a lot can be traced to the Proto-Indo-European religion, and in case of aboriginal Australian religions, to some other prehistorical beliefs. Thus, I don't see any point in trying to figure out which is older. Either the  "oldest" statement be qualified with more specific details (like oldest of world's major religions, "major" linked to number of adherents), or just go with the original statement. deeptrivia (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Hinduism isnt the oldest then which religion is?....I mean Hinduism wasnt established when the Vedas were written...Because the Vedas were passed down orally for centuries....And dont forget their is no main prophet, no main founder, and no main city that founded this religion....It actualy isnt a religion....THe word Hindu isnt even a word...If u people would stop and take the time to read some HIndu scriptures, and understand the notion of Karma and the universe, u will see that these teachings go back to the start of man....I am not a hardcore religoius freak...I am not someone that says Hinduism is the best and everyone else is wrong...But im trying to show u logic here....Hinduism is not someting u can put a date on...SO therefore it is the oldest... ARYAN818 19:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a non-point. If Hinduism is not something you can put a date on, then it is perforce not old or young, let along "the oldest".—Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest existent religion in the world? 

message: "The eighteen Purāṇas are divided into three groups of six. The groups and their contents are: 1) the Brahmā Purāṇas: the Brahma Purāṇa, Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa, Brahma Vaivarta Purāṇa, Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa, Bhaviṣhya Purāṇa, and Vāmana Purāṇa; 2) the Viṣhnu Purāṇas: the Viṣhnu Purāṇa, Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Nāradīya Purāṇa, Garuḍa Purāṇa, Padma Purāṇa, and Varāha Purāṇa; and 3) the Shiva Purāṇas: the Vāyu Purāṇa, Liṅga Purāṇa, Skanda Purāṇa, Agni Purāṇa, Matsya Purāṇa, and Kūrma Purāṇa." - This is the only part that I feel still needs wiklinking.  However, I am not even sure if having a long list of names is really worth while.  Please give feedback on whether or not it should be kept - if you want to keep it then wikilinking is needed.  --Blacksun 14:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should get rid of it.  The same list is mentioned and wikilinked on the puranas page.  Puranas is already wikilinked on the main hinduism page.--Dangerous-Boy 17:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: excellent, the article is now down to an acceptable 60k. Thanks for the effort, and try to keep it 'slim' :) btw, if anyone can be bothered, please replace all  marking Sanskrit transliteration with , it's why we have the template. dab (ᛏ) 19:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this text needed?

message: Please please please understand that it is not just about adding a citation.  Quality of citation is even more important.  Almost all of the citations used in the article right now would be rejected even in a higschool composition class.  For instance, adding a link to a product description page that is for sale does not count as a citation.  It is a waste of time to add such references.  Try to  use books, papers, etc.  --Blacksun 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can change or remove any citation. Please contribute. -  Holy Ganga  talk  22:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, lets do one thing. Start discuss all citaions as you said , one by one and select only those which are OK and at the same time keep searching for better ones. I hope you are not interested in only so called western scholars like max muller and witzel recognised citations. -  Holy Ganga  talk  23:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really almost everything under "reference" section is appropriate.  However, none of it is used directly.  Almost everything under "Notes" section is inappropriate unless it is a citation for things like Hindu population.  I don't understand if someone read all that material under "Reference" then why did they not use more inline citations from it? And no, I dont care who the scholars are as long as we are not citing website that is selling art.  Any thing that is published is better than what we have. --Blacksun 16:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: your comments are not really useful, holyganga. "please contribute"?? I hope you are aware of the effort Blacksun has put into this article, so who are you to tell him to just fix it? Let's face it, it is extremely difficult to improve Hinduism related articles, because of the constant stream of extremely substandard and naive edits. It would take a couple of Indologists half a day to turn this into an excellent article, but with the never-ending deterioration, it is a Herculean task just to preserve the modest quality already reached. Don't try to portray this as an East vs. West issue. It's a scholarship vs. puerile naivete issue. There are a lot of really erudite Indian editors here, but the plain fact is that they are simply overwhelmed by the crap added each day. dab (ᛏ) 17:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are you objecting, dab? I definitely meant what I said and I respect Blacksun capabalities. If Blacksun can request user Rama's arrow and others to contribute, so i can request Blacksun. -  Holy Ganga  talk  10:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is ok - I took no offense.  Let us forget about personal conflicts.  I understand that things can get testy from time to time and I am more than willing to ignore that.  I would just like to say that going through the article looking for things to improve is a contribution too :) --Blacksun 15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of references

message: In the section "Hindu symbolism", the descriptions associated to the two last items are quite problematic:
1- Swastika. First, an important meaning of that marvellous symbol is not mentionned: the Swastika is a symbol of the action of the Principle on the universal Manisfestation. The four segments are tangent to the circle centered on the cross, and the circle (symbolizing Manifestation)  itself is not present, which is a clear indication that the Swastika symbolizes the dynamic action of the centre (Principle) over the Manisfestation, not the Manifestation in itself. Since two orientations are naturally associated with a circle, you easily obtain in that way the two possible orientations for the Swastika. The two possible orientations are present in India, although one is more prevalent in Hinduism, but the two orientations exist and are perfectly orthodox. There is an evident connection with the notion of Pradakshina. Consequently, the evil in the utilization of that symbol by the Nazis does not come from their particular choice of an orientation, but rather from the subversion of an authentic traditional symbol to make it a political one, as they did not understand its meaning. As matter of fact, I think that it is even not worth mentionning the perverted use that the Nazis made of that symbol: after all, the Swastika is being used since millenaries, by Hindus in particular, so why focus on a malevolent and recent interpretation ?
2- Mandala. In a similar vein, the most important signification of the two triangles is missing: it is a symbol based on the number 6 symbolism and it is a symbol of Analogy. It is not at all a symbol of "opposite energies", what is written here is false. And its use as a political flag by Israelis also results, like in item 1 above, (although from an opposite perspective of course) in the political perversion of an authentic symbol by people who don't understand it. A reference to the "Salomon Seal" would have been more appropriate than the "Star of David", if one insists on drawing correspondances with Judaism. And, incentally, please note that this symbol is used in Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and also other traditions.
3- For the Aum symbol, I think that what is written here is correct.
Consequently, I brought little changes to the "Hindu Symbolism" section, to make it more satisfactory. Any reactions are welcome.
TwoHorned 11:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hindu symbolism is explained in unlimited ways. It would be a mistake to take one explanation as the only way. Aupmanyav 13:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree entirely. This is why I added a sentence: universal symbols have many interpretations in the "Mandala" symbol description. TwoHorned 14:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindu symbolism

message: I hope that all editors of this article realise that the article is on the verge of being stripped off its featured status. Please see discussions on the link above and try to improve the article before the featured status is revoked. -- Lost 18:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late now :(. Hope to see it featured some day again.. -- Lost 14:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Farewell featured article status...--D-Boy 07:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hinduism]] 

message: Well, I know I can at least do one thing to clean up the articles.  I going to remove a lot of those links.  there's just too much crap down there.  anyone is welcome to join me.  Be bold!  I start in the next couple of days.--D-Boy 07:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link clean up drive 

message: Shouldn't the main page contain an article about this? It is, after all, a rather important part of life, it wouldn't be around without it. Most religions attach some form of importance to it so I'm surprised this article doesn't contain any comment on the subject.--Tiresais 16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Unless a religion has specific directive towards sex, their is little reason to include in the article.  Attitudes towards sex is very much cultural rather than religious and it is hard to generalize that in an article about Hinduism to any type of accuracy as cultural attitudes vary from region to region.  --Blacksun 16:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is obviously mention of it in the article, so a general point on the subject could be express. Attitudes from the religion's point of view are set in stone, or ink and paper. Cultural issues are rather a matter of personal perspective and interpretation. A general point from the religion doesn't need to be accurate.--Tiresais 18:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Attitudes from the religion's point of view are not always set in stone or ink and paper.  It is afterall a human that writes things and that always changes.  Don't confuse cultural with religious.  I am not really aware of any strict sexual guidelines in Hinduism that are not cultural - but then again i am not an expert.  --Blacksun 07:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not confusing cultural and religious. Take an example of Catholicism, the religion strictly denounces sex before marriage, but cultural differences may put more or less emphasis on the point (Africa is stricter due to prevalent STD's for example). If there are no strict guidelines then fair enough, but it seems a bit weird that they'd not mention it. --Tiresais 08:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We can mention kamashastra. I agree that Hinduism is not prudish by any means. --Babub→Talk 04:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attitudes Towards Sex 

message: Maybe there should be a section on non-vedic schools of thought in Hinduism. see: http://www.tamu.edu/chr/agora/sukumaran4.html
:No, the article needs to be cut back in its length and made more concise.  Adding every obscure school of thought is not the aim.  --Blacksun 16:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-vedic schools of thought ? 

message: I copied this message from WikiProject Hinduism's talk page because that page is slightly inactive.  After whizzing through the page I saw that it was more than just a glossary on Mahabharat! I think it should be merged into Glossary of terms in Hinduism. Please discuss. GizzaChat © 02:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mahabharata glossary]] 

message: I'm no expert on the subject, but aren't many words here spelled weirdly?  For instance, shouldn't "Vishnu" be either Vishnu (if simple English) or "Viṣṇu" (if properly transliterated)?  It's "Viṣhṇu" in the article—a spelling which seems to be a combination of both, taking both the English "sh" and the "ṣ" which is supposed to replace it. The article Vishnu uses "Viṣṇu" as its Sanskrit transliteration. OzLawyer 19:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're entirely correct.  It should be one or the other, not both!  See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) for details of how we're trying to standardise this across all Indic-related pages (it's a WIP policy at the moment). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya they spell Karm as "Karma"....Shiv as "Shiva"...Buddh as "Buddha"....Ram as "Rama"....Krishn as "Krishna"....I mean the list goes on...I dont know why they do this do Indian words...THey either add an extra letter "A" at the end or do something else to it. ARYAN818 00:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aryan, as someone who has told me several times that they've read the Hindu holy books, surely you know that's how they're pronounced in Sanskrit?  Did you not know that Hindi/Punjabi have dropped the final short 'a' on most Sanskrit-derived words? :P Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian words 

message: I saw a section for the Gita & Shruti, but their was no section for the UPansishads, Puranas, Ramayan, Mahabharat, and the Kama Sutra...Yes I know that some of these were mentioned in sentences...But how come they dont have their own section just like the GIta and SHruti? ARYAN818 00:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Upanishads are part of Shruti and the others are part of Smriti, which also has a section. The only exception is Kam Sutra, which doesn't have a mention because it isn't really a relgious book. There are few refs to dharma etc., but it is just a Sanskrit book on family relationships and love. Bear in mind that not all existing Sanskrit texts are based on religion. There are also the panchtantra and hitopadesh. GizzaChat © 12:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of many Hindu books 

message: Lately, Maleabroad and I have entered into a cycle of insertions and deletions. Like some other cycles--samsara, for example--this one would be good to escape. 
As I see it, Maleabroad, the problem is that what you are inserting as "core concepts" of Hinduism are concepts many Hindus may agree with but many others may not.
Could I ask, Maleabroad, that before once again inserting this material you place your suggestions about it here on the Talk page and see whether we can arrive at a consensus? Thank you very much. Respectfully, O Govinda 23:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on "core concepts" 

message: I just cut:
:However, Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of an individual's caste, while Article 17 prohibits practice of the social stigma of untouchability "The Indian Constitution". Part III (Articles 15 & 17). "Fundamental Rights". In contemporary India, caste differences are slowly disappearing with modernization, but occasional tensions and prejudices still remain.
...from the article.  This seems to be trying to argue some point about the caste system and Indian law and culture that does not seem to me to be directly relevent to the religion of Hinduism.  If I'm wrong, and this is crucial information about Hinduism, I'd like to encourage some rewording to avoid citing specific articles of the Constitution of India and then immediately changing to a breezy tone of unsourced generalisation.  Jkelly 22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian law

message: Can the knowledgeable people comment on this AFD please? Is the article a hoax? -- Lost 14:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a joke, it is a hoax, it is disrespect to Wikipedia, and disrespect to scholarship of any kind. How come such silly pages take so long to be removed and the person responsible is not banned? Aupmanyav 13:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mohit]] 

message: After long discussions I was able to add to the Hinduism page that there are Hindus who worship many Gods. I return to the page after some days to find that polytheists have been removed from the Hindu fold and only Monism or Dualism is acceptable to the powers that be. That too without any discussion. It seems that the Hinduism page should be made into in many pages, each detailing the views of only one person, like Aupmanyav's page on Hinduism, or Dangerous-Boy's page on Hinduism, or Cygnus-Hansa's page on Hinduism, or Raj's page on Hinduism, or Holy Ganga's page on Hinduism. That is why Hinduism pages cannot even maintain their FA status. That is the reason we do not find any improvement in Hinduism pages, and there is no one else to blame for this but ourselves. Aupmanyav 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O_O! What are you talking about?  The only thing I touched was the removal of some links.--D-Boy 23:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: D_Boy, why do take everything so personally? I included your name only as an example. My chief grouse is that the mention that many Hindus are polytheists has been removed without any discussion. I am sure that people have included many silly other things in Hinduism pages. Now, how many times a person can take up the issue again and try to put things right? People should understand that they are spoiling the introduction to Hinduism to millions of people through Wikipedia in this way. Hinduism will always have all kinds of people in its fold, polytheists as well as atheists (like me). I do not know from where some people have picked up this Christian or Islamic trait of exclusivity. Aupmanyav 15:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Because you sounded like you were accussing me of changes I did not make.  Plus, it feels like we are waging some kind of proganda battle on wikipedia now a days.  have you been to the Hindutva section or gujart violence?  its being attacked by paks and secularists.  even the babri mosque page has gone crazy.--D-Boy 19:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I have not been there, will check. This is because we are divided among ourselves. I have started a forum on Wikipedia Hinduism Pages. Will inform you when it is ready to go. I only want that we give equal value to all shades of belief in Hinduism, I am not a polytheist, Tatah kim (so what)? Aupmanyav 07:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No polytheism in Hinduism 

message: why there is no mention of hindu calender, i.e. the panchang in this page. it is an indispensable part of our culture and religion. it is also the most accurate callender in the world, better than gregorian versions.
nids 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why there is not mention of hindu calender

message: thanks for your support aupmanyav. but it seems nobody else seems to agree. we can provide the legal sources, through which we could include nastiq philosophies in hinduism too. Such as Clause 2(b) of article 25 of Indian constitution says Buddhist and Jains to be Hindu. Buddhist and Jains are athiestic religions as there is no place for creationist god in their philosophy. other links for athiesm in traditional hinduism are 
. also, Nastika in Hindu terms is related to non-believing of vedas, while atheism refers to non beleiving of existence of God. so, although Nastiq covers only Buddhism, Jainism and Charavaka for Hindu philosophy, athiesm covers nastiqs along with poorva mimamsa and sankhya. I can also not understand why are we not allowed to include buddha as ninth avatar of vishnu here, while our puranas are clear for that.  
This page just covers about Vaishnavism rather than Hinduism. All the six schools of thoughts covered here are generally considered vaishnavites (I may be wrong here). the current page seems to ignore shavist sects like Aghori as non-Hindus. This page, also, does not adequately covers Shaktism either. in my suggestion, we can do some redistribution of data here. Move some vaishnavism to its respective article and give a brief introduction to other aspects of hinduism like polytheism, athiesm, shaivism, shaktism which are all universally accepted parts of hinduism. hinduism also covers tamsiq ways of worships like alchohol being offered to shaivist deities like bhairon baba.(there is a temple in pragati maidan, delhi where sharaab is offered to the god). there are also temples in nepal where eggs are offered to gods. infact shiva worship is more like tamsiq and it is completely condemned in this page. while as a hindu, we must respect all sects, including Aghori. 
Moreover, I could not find wikipedia policy which bans me from referring to other wikilinks. If somebody could point me to that. if i could directly point out to wikilinks, it'll make job a lot easier, where we could also mention the six school of shavism.nids 18:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the last paragraph, see where it says "Note: Wikipedia articles should not be cited as sources." on the Wikipedia:Citing sources page. I hope there is also a policy somewhere on starting a sentence with a capital letter. :-)  —Wookipedian 06:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aupmanyav, Wikipedia is not a forum for airing your personal beliefs. Hinduism is based on the Vedas and allied texts and this article must follow the Hinduism of these texts, not some "Hinduism" of yours or nids' wild imagination. If anything, you can start a website of your own and air your views there, but not in an encyclopedia.Babub→Talk 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: dear Babub, are you saying that Hinduism is restricted to worship of vedas and anyone who does not worship vedas is not a hindu.(according to may be great scholars like griffith, keith, Max mueller and BR Ambedkar). Please be clear. Are you also saying that the legal definitions do not deserve to be part of encyclopedia, including the constitutional and Supreme court jugdements.nids 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, since when have scholars or supreme courts come to have a say in defining a religion? The Vedic religion that is Hinduism is naturally based on the Veda and the Vedic traditions and we don't need any interested parties to tell us what our religion is. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to complain about your nit-pickings and fancy ideas. Babub→Talk 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we have a different page for vedic religion. if you feel that this page should be restricted to monotheistic hinduism and not cover other aspects, atleast be clear. if you want to say that worship of Bhairon Baba temple with alchohol is unhinduistic and related to personal nit-pickings and fancy ideas, atleast be straightforward. You will be perfectly right to restrict Hinduism to the Vedic religion (as said by western scholars) as per wikipedia policies (and i wont argue on that). My only problem is that you are not straightforward in condemning athiesm, polytheism, tantrik, shaivism, shaktism, caravaka as unhinduistic. as for legal definitions, they were cited to explain that even Legal systems abstain from defining Hinduism, while there are simple defintions for Christianity and Islam.nids 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh yes, I'm saying all that in your imagination. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. Babub→Talk 16:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd welcome your taking this "case" to the arbcom. Babub→Talk 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: babub, please read my previous comment again. i have not put any of my words into your mouth. i have simply asked you some questions. and it was you who said that "The Vedic religion that is Hinduism is naturally based on the Veda ". Thus, defining Hinduism which no other person on earth previously did.nids 17:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if you want to say that worship of Bhairon Baba temple with alchohol is unhinduistic and related to personal nit-pickings and fancy ideas, atleast be straightforward.  These are your words. Not mine. I beleive that all these traditions and atheism and much much more are part of Hindu tradition as are the Vedas. But that does not make Hinduism atheistic. If you really  and desperately want to become an atheist, why not become one? Why hang around in Hinduism and try to distort it? Samkhya and Mimamsa could help you along the way, but kindly understand that Vedanta (which is the main Hindu philosophy followed by Hindus) is strictly theistic. Babub→Talk 18:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: first, please calm down babub. we still have a different page for Vedanta. In this page, we can restrict ourselves to define different philosophies, including the ones that are already there on the page. i am not saying that hinduism is not monotheistic, what i am saying is that this article deserves a introduction of other ways of hindu beliefs, which include other things rather than just vedanta.nids 18:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: But I am saying Hinduism is not monotheistic :)Babub→Talk 18:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Babub, you are basically confused right now. There are a whole lot of monotheists in Hinduism as well on these wikipedia pages. Aupmanyav 02:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: nids, the fact that hinduism has no problems with polytheism, atheism, or even animism, should be included. These facts were removed sometime ago without any discussion. What Hinduism considers unalienable is that a person should follow his Dharma (duty/right action); manasa, vacha, karmana (in thought, in speech, in action). Aupmanyav 06:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You say: "You are likely to anger a whole lot of those who follow the teachings of Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, Vallabhacharya and Sri Chaitanya." I say: Ahem, aren't all these teachers Vedantists? Have you had a good look at Vedanta yourself?Babub→Talk 08:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, Babub. My apologies. At least two philosophies are monotheist. Am I correct? Aupmanyav 14:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheistic views in hinduism

message: Vaisesika accepts only two sources of knowledge, Pratyaksha and Anumana. Vedas are not accepted as one. Aupmanyav 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could kindly condescend to provide some proof for the above, wikipedia would be very glad. Babub→Talk 16:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, Babub, I would do that, but let no one consider the freedom of belief in Hinduism as its weakness, actually it is its greatest strength. Hinduism has covered a long distance (perhaps 10000 years) and has a long distance to go, hand in hand with the advancement of science. Aupmanyav 05:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The six schools of darsana (vaisesikha, samkhya, mimamsa, nyaya, yoga, vedanta) all support and consider vedas the supreme authority. Only vedanta and mimamsa however completely to the character of the vedas. Leafy 05:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Vaisesikas hold that perception and inference are the only proofs. They do not reject the others as proofs, but maintain that the others are reducible to inference, are only different applications of inference. S.N.Gupta (http://fair-use.org/mind/1895/04/the-nature-of-inference-in-hindu-logic) Aupmanyav 12:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Vaisesikas hold that Perception and Inference are the only Proofs. They do not reject the others as proofs, but maintain that the others are reducible to inference, are only different applications of inference. This remark is also applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the following opinions" They do not reject the Vedas as per the link you have given. Babub→Talk 12:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Vedas also are perception and inference. Some people may consider some inferences to be incorrect. Aupmanyav 03:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belief in Vedas 

message: The "Notes" section needs to be cleaned up using citation templates. Babub→Talk 15:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes needs cleanup

message: It is not called that in Sanskrit. It is only called that in Hindi and other modern Indian languages. The first sentence will have to be reworded. GizzaChat © 07:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu Dharma 

message: {The vandalism was removed} Babub→Talk 13:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hello? this is pure reductio ad hitlerum. Hitler built motorways, ergo all motorways are an evil fascist conspiracy. Also, Ancient India was hardly the only Iron Age society with a concept of an outcast class, you know. The problem are, much rather, people today, in India as much as in America and the Near East (and, you guessed it, 1930s Germany), that relapse into an Iron Age mindset.(ᛎ) qɐp 08:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that SrimadBhagwad Geeta is not an ancient Aryan scripture. It is a hindu and vaishnav scripture. Anybody can pick up any symbol, e.g., a cross, and use it for his/her nefarious purpose. The symbol or the rightful users of the symbol cannot be faulted for this. I do not know what was the extent of understanding of of Hinduism of these people, Himmler and Hitler. Had Himmler read something of the book he is supposed to have carried and studied it, I am sure, the effects would have been completely different. Again, Blavatsky and her friends were just people besotted with their own views of orientalism. Nobody thinks of theosophy now. All people have a soft corner for their own people and prejudices for others, the whites and the non-whites, Japanese and the non-Japanese, christians and non-chiristians, the believers and the non-believers, the momin and the kafirs; if Aryans also thought that way, why should it surprise anybody, There is always a categorisation in any society, Europe also had such categorisation. Arya/Anarya division happened when the Aryans first came to India. After they mingled with the inhabitants of India, there were no Aryans, all became hindus. Bonded labour exists even now, and the people who control it are usually the newly powerful OBCs (Other Backward Classes, particularly the Jats and Yadavs), don't blame brahmins for it. If it was carried on during the British days, then the British also were a party to it. Slavery was even worse as practiced in muslim countries, in Europe and in America. You have not seen or read about true racism and aparthied as practiced by the whites in America and Africa, otherwise your views would have been much different. The Hindu caste system which was based on occupations, language, region of residence, food habits, traditions, has a large self-imposed component. Aupmanyav 11:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed

message: This too is unfortunate that this person (61.3.165.195) replaces my post with his. This is vandalism. This is not honest editing. Aupmanyav 10:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have blocked this IP, which was obviously used by banned user . (ᛎ) qɐp 11:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also unfortunate 

message: I think it is wrong to mention that all hindus regard vedas as supreme and worship one brahmana, atleast in the introduction. as a fact Purva mimamsa, Samkhya and caravaka did not worship any supreme being or brahmana. Amongst personalities, Veer Savarkar was an athiest and he is important because afterall, he was the one who coined the term Hindutva. i feel that it would be correct to remove the statement from the intro and move it inside the article and change it to say that most hindus do this (rather than saying all hindus).--nids(♂) 03:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been telling this again and again, but the misguided 'Vedics' would not listen, just like you don't listen about not including Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists. Biases. Aupmanyav 09:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to remove them, you can do it now.--nids(♂) 09:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Carvaka dont come into the branch of hindus. Purva Mimamsa is an extinct school, while Samkhya isn't preached by many people. So the changes can be made "Hindus...pray to supreme spirit brahman....though some schools such as Carvaka and Purva Mimamsa dont..."Leafy 06:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i was proposing only this kind of change, Where it is not authoritatively said that hindus pray to just one brahmana. And there are other denominations too. The schools i gave are just examples. Even if they are extinct schools, they are important for an encyclopedic article. and if you want to pick up just from contemporary hinduism, you will still find many atheists. One example is noted above.nids(♂) 09:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The philosophy of the schools is still there and it is a part of Hinduism and its philosophers are still venerated sages of Hinduism. Charvaks or Lokayat philosophy, however strange it was, was a part of Hinduism, that cannot be denied. But a new sort of people have entered the arena. Atheists but hindus. For them Rama and Krishna are mythological heroes, still supremely important, because these people agree that from these stories people learn the way to conduct their lives. Make some space for the likes of us. Aupmanyav 17:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  brahmana and vedas in introduction 

message: Per the above discussion, any suggestions about improving this article? It was FA at one time, but now it is very poor in quality, though it has quantity. Vandalisms, edit wars have ruined it. That's why I asked an admin to make it semi-protected. Babub→Talk 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the featuring process was questionable, it was never in a state that would pass FAC as it is now. You may go back to the original featured version, or the version after Blacksun's extensive cleanup and recover passages that have since deteriorated directly. (ᛎ) qɐp 16:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving?

message: This page pretty much is a translation of the text. Somebody has to shorten it. GizzaChat © 10:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Linga Purana]] 

message: :"Vadanti" is bahuvaachak, right (Vadati, Vadatah, Vadanti Dhaatu Roop)? So should we use the singular "it" in the translation? Presently, the translation says Truth is one, though it is known by many names. Shouldn't it be as follows:
:"The Truths are one, though they are said to be many".
:If I'm wrong, then please tell me. I studied Sanskrit till 10th standard only, and it was a while back :) .Shiva's Trident 14:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not kept the two words separate, "Eko Sat, Vipra Bahudha Vadanti'. What you have forgotten in the translation is 'Vipra'. The author of the line is talking about 'good people', he is not talking about bad people. This is important, because bad people may give an intentional wrong description. Good people do not describe it as many, they describe it in many ways. So the correct translation is (IMHO) - 'One exists, good people describe it in various ways'. Aupmanyav 15:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per sanskrit dictionaries, Vipra means Brahmin. Babub→Talk 16:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: OK thanks. I see now that the bahuvaachak refers to Vipra. Does Vipra exclusively refer to Brahmins or all Dvijas?Shiva's Trident 00:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The former. Babub→Talk 06:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check, Babub, Vipra like Arya also means a good, well-intentioned person. Then, it is not 'viprahaa', viprA itself is plural. Aupmanyav 06:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok. There are secondary meanings as you say. but the primary meaning as used in most sanskrit works is Brahmin. Babub→Talk 08:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Shiva's Trident, Bahuvachan is for Vipras and not for Sat which, no doubt, is one. Aupmanyav 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ekam Satviprahaa Bahudha Vadanti