Talk:Hindu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hindu article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

Archives
July 2005 - Feb 2006

[edit] Submissions requested on forgiveness article

I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding to the Hinduism stub under the "Formal religions and forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state the Hindu view on forgiveness? Any help would be appreciated. --speet 03:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the following an appropriate quote for the Hindu view on forgiveness?

Forgiveness is a great power

From The Mahabharata

Udyoga Parva Section XXXIII

Translated by Sri Kisari Mohan Ganguli

Addressing Dhritarashtra

Vidura said: There is one only defect in forgiving persons, and not another; that defect is that people take a forgiving person to be weak. That defect, however, should not be taken into consideration, for forgiveness is a great power. Forgiveness is a virtue of the weak, and an ornament of the strong. Forgiveness subdues (all) in this world; what is there that forgiveness cannot achieve? What can a wicked person do unto him who carries the sabre of forgiveness in his hand? Fire falling on the grassless ground is extinguished of itself. And unforgiving individual defiles himself with many enormities. Righteousness is the one highest good; and forgiveness is the one supreme peace; knowledge is one supreme contentment; and benevolence, one sole happiness. [1]

[edit] Who were the first people to call us 'hindus'

I had included the following paragraph trying to show who might be the first people to call us 'hindus': 'Probably the first people to call Indians as 'Hindu' were a brother branch of Aryans, who migrated from India to Iran because of heat and fever (Avesta, India is mentioned as the fifteenth home of Aryans) before 2,000 B.C.E.'

This was removed by Shavez with the following comment: 'Aryans came from Europe, then why will they go back to Iran?'

To say Aryans came from Europe is laughable.

yes You are correct Mister! Aryans went out of this sub continent not the other way round as described by the English Hisotrians. When you said the BROTHER BRANCH OF ARYANS who migrated from India- Your are correct they are PARSIS. who returned back to India and settled in Gujarath and now known as PARSIS in INDIA. Could Shavez give any reference? The only authentic reference to Aryan migration is from Avesta and is given below:

"I, Ahura Mazda, created as the first best region, Airyanam Vaejo, of the good creation. Then Angra Mainyu, the destroyer, formed in opposition to it, a great serpent (glacier?) and winter, the creation of Daevas. There are these ten months of winter and two of summer." 2. I, Ahura Mazda, created as the second best region, Gau (plains) in which Sughdha (Sogdiana?) is situated. Thereupon, in opposition to it, Angra Mainyu, the death-dealing, created a wasp which is death to cattle and fields. 3. I, etc., created as the third best region, Mouru (Margiana, Merv), the mighty, the holy. 4. I, etc., created as the fourth best region, the fortunate Bakhdhi (Bactria?), with the lofty banner. 5. I, etc., created as the fifth best region, Nisaya (situated between Mouru and Bakhdhi). 6. I, etc., created as the sixth best region, Haroyu (Herat), abounding in the houses (or water). 7. I, etc., created as the seventh best region, Vaekerata, where Dujak is situated (according to Darmesteter, of evil shadows). In opposition to it, Angra Mainyu, the destroyer, created the Pairika Khnathaiti, who clung to Keresaspa. 8. I, etc., created the eighth best region, Urva, full of pastures. 9. I, etc., created as the ninth best region, Khnenta (a river) in Vehrkana (Balkh? Valhika?). 10. I, etc., created the tenth best region, the fortunate Harahvaiti (Saraswati). 11. I, etc., created the eleventh best region, Haetumant, the rich and shining. 12. I, etc., created the twelveth best region, Ragha, with three fortresses (or races). 13. I, etc., created the thirteenth best region, Chakhra, the strong. 14. I, etc., created the fourteenth best region, Varena, with four corners; to which was born Thraetaona, who slew Azi Dahaka. 15. I, etc., created the fifteenth best country, Hapta Hendu (from the eastern to the western Hendu). In opposition, Angra Mainyu created untimely evils, and pernicious heat (or fever). 16. I, etc., created the sixteenth and best, the people who live without a head on the floods of Rangha (according to Haug 'on the seashore')."

B. G. Tilak places 'Airyanam Vaejo' in Sub-Arctic region because of a long night of two or three months mentioned in RigVeda (Ati Ratra - the greater night). There is no detail of their travels from that to Central Asia. The story warms up in Sogdiana, which is mentioned as the second region of Aryan habitation. After that, they seem to have lingered for a long time in the Central Asian region. One of their branches came to India and called the Punjab region as 'Sapta Sindhu'. Some of them left the Sapta Sindhu region because of 'pernicious heat'. They later moved to floods (seashore) of Rangha. That could be the southern Iranian coast or even the shores of Caspian Sea. That is where Avesta might have been written. Some Aryans might have gone straight from Central Asia to Iran.That this happened around 2,500-2,000 B.C.E. is indicated by the the compilation of and changes in Taittiriya Samhita of the RigVeda and the astronomical record.

These were the people who were familiar with the word 'Sindhu'. They would probably be the first to call us 'hindus'. I suppose my contention is not wrong. I am not editing the page this time, and would wait for inputs from Shavez and other contributors. Aupmanyav 11:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Significance of Bharat

The term Bharat has little to do with Hinduism and just don't see any reason for its inclusion. India is named as Bharat after the ancient kingdom of Bharatvarsha. What does that kingdom ha to do with Hinduism other than the fact that perhaps its founder, Emperor Bharata, was a Hindu? --Spartian 10:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That was what makers of the Indian constitution decided. India was called as Bharatvarsha or Bharatkhanda in Hindu ceremonies. We do not know if Emperor Bharat is history or Mythology. This was perhaps a ploy to keep India a secular nation and ameliorate the feelings of hindus (Muslims had got their Pakistan at the same time). It can be changed by a 75% vote in the parliament. Indian constitution has been amended upteen number of times. Wanna try, have a go. Aupmanyav 12:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I share the explanation that the ancient name of India as a political entity is Bharatavarsha, and the ancient name of the Indian subcontinent is Bharatakhanda.Kanchanamala 04:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the line that India was named Bharat to "ameliorate the feelings of hindus " a bit amusing. Bharat was one of the many names for India. That as one of the names commonly used in Indian langauges jsut as India was used in English and Hindustan(sometimes Hindostan). One more name I have come across at a Buddhist site was Jambuvadeepa(literaly Large Island)--Deepak D'Souza 11:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lot of inaccuracies in this article

To claim before the invasion of Babur there was no common religion is incorrect. All corners of India/Bharat/Hindustan have/had ancient temples of Shiva, Vishnu etc. Thus these people were following same religion and believing in same Gods.

The whole aryan thing is tenous too.

Bharat has less to do with Hinduism but more to do with the name of the country.

+10 000 thundering typhoons 07:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)+

Well, I don't agree with you entirely. Before the arrival of Islam, Hindus (as people living in the Indian subcontinent were known as before) had varying religious beliefs which exists even today. Hinduism has more denominations than any other religion in the world. I would say that all Hindus don't have common beliefs. But yes, to say that Hindus didn't have a common religion is a bit inaccurate. Thanks --Spartian 17:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What don't you agree with? Believing in a pantheon of Gods has always been the Hindu way. Arrival of Islam had no impact on hinduism whatsoever. Though modern historians are searching for "positive impact" of Islam on Hinduism and India. People all over India, North/South/East/West believe in the same set of Gods and Godesses. This is not new. It has been like this way before Buddha and Mahavira i.e 9th century B.C.

Do you have some specifics you would like to discuss?

+10 000 thundering typhoons 11:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)+

10,000 Thundering Typhoons - There is nothing tenous about the Aryans. These people were from Sub-Arctic Siberia (geographical conditions were different at that time and mammoths and other large mammals roamed in Tundra). These people were forced to leave their land 'Ariyanam Vaejo' by the advancing ice-age (20,000 B.C.). Their people percolated everywhere, in Central Asia where they remained for a long time, in India, in Iran, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Germany, and Scandinavia. Spartian - Hinduism has always been like that and perhaps always will be. It cannot be exclusive like the Abrahamaic religions. Aryan, Scythians, Parthians, Greeks, Kushans, Christianity, or Islam have had only marginal effect on Hinduism. Actually all the earlier immigrants accepted Hinduism. Indian religions (Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism) had more effect on Hinduism. Aupmanyav 14:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am not able to find this particular sentence in the article. Secondly, I would like to apologize for not getting your point. To say that before the arrival of Islam, Hindus didn't have a common religion and that after the Muslim invaders came, they had one is inaccurate. Thanks --Spartian 19:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Here it is "Prior to successful invasion of Indian subcontinent by Babar from Uzbekistan and later by European colonialists, there was no distinct definition of religion in India.".

+10 000 thundering typhoons 18:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)+

That is not correct. The definition of Hinduism is very clear to intelligent people but not clear who would not like to understand. What is necessary for all Hindus is Dharma (Duty, right action). That is necessary for upkeep of society and cannot be trifled with. Where Hinduism has given complete freedom to an individual is personal belief. You can have a hundred Gods, one or none. You can believe that the universe was created by Gods/God or you can believe that it was eternal, without beginning. You can believe that you will be born again as humans, or animals or be one with in substance of nature. You can believe in one scripture or disbelieve in it. You can believe in heaven or hell or disbelieve in it. These are known as 'Panths', the paths, the ways, and if arrived in good faith, they are all acceptable in Hinduism. Generally Hindus do believe in many forms of one God, do believe in Vedas and Geeta, do believe in rebirth, and do belive in heaven and hell; but all that is not always essential. Aupmanyav 09:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, that is like saying Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the same religion. If you are saying Hinduism is a family of religions sharing many commonolaties then I can agree with you there and even allow your call on Jainism and stretch it to include Buddhism, but then draw the line if you include Sikhism like some others I hear. Basic crux is when Shaivites say Shiva killed Vishnu and Vaishnavites say Vishnu defeated Shiva, this is schism deeper than Sunni and Shi'as and of the order of seperation of of the other Abrahamic religions (and history attests of an equally violent interaction) with their different prophets. Plus there is the distinction of those 'Panths' who ascribe to the caste system of Manu and then those who don't. If the cat has got stripes its a tiger and if it has a mane a lion and if it has a real short tail its a bob-cat they are the same but not really. The fact is today a Hindu is really who ever in India is not a Muslim/ Christian/ Buddhist and it is really a commonality of a historical experience and local traditions that has in the past 1000 years fused the disparate elements into a more cohesive conciousness. This more due to the fracturious human nature such that it always needs an "us" and a "them", when the chips are down the bloke over the ocean is part of us, when the chips are good even blood is a them.

It is nothing like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam being the same religion. Your premise is based perhaps on your unfamiliarity with Hinduism or unwillingness to accept Hinduism as one of the four major religions of the world. In Hinduism, a person not satisfied with available philosophies is free to search for his/her own answers to the riddle of life. All such answers if arrived in good faith are accepted. The famous RigVeda saying 'Eko sat, vipra bahudha vadanti' (truth is one, seers describe it variously) validates them all. That is why Hinduism includes all types of views, polytheism/monotheism/monism/atheism (Kanada's atomic Vaisheshika darshana). Draw your line, I would not insist on including Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism in the Hindu fold, though we do have a soft corner for them. Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma spats are fun in Hinduism and we do not mind them. Caste system has hardly anything to do with the scriptures, which describe 'Varna', i.e., the various inclinations of people. Even a 'shoodra' could have a brahmin 'varna' or a brahmin may have a 'vaishya' varna. It is decided by the position of stars at the time of child's birth, something ordained by God. Caste is a group of people who are endogamous to safeguard their language, tradition, etc. The caste structure is under revision in the present times, all things change. Yes, we all share a commonality of culture and history not for the past 1000 years but perhaps 10000 years. India was well-populated even during the mesolithic times. 'Us' and 'them' is a universal feature, why blame just the Hindus. Aupmanyav 10:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know you can have a hundered gods. Even the liberal Smartas recognize only six forms of God as different aspects of one Brahman. And Lord Krishna Himself said in the Gita that those who worship lesser deities are of imperfect understanding instead of worshiping Him alone. So reasonable people can differ.

Also if you are an atheist, that's may be Hindu in the broad sense in terms of culture, not religion. You may be following the Charvaka school which was known even at the time of the writing of Upanishads. Even in Lord Krishna's time, there were atheists. There's a specific verse, in the Gita which states that the demoniac think creation is a simply a creation of lust, instead of a supreme personal God. Gita:16:8: "According to them nothing is ultimately real in this world. It is Godless and without any moral basis. Being born of sexual union, what else but lust can be said to be its cause?"

Raj2004 11:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That depends on your definition of atheist. The problem is that we are constantly thinking in non-Hindu terms and then perceiving Hinduism through that lens. For example the Gita's twelfth chapter begins with a description of those who are intent on attaining the unmanifest and the indefinable. This is not a personal God. It is not even clear that this is a God or God, but simply some transcendent, indefinable, impersonal Absolute. The Gita immediately validates this aim, although stating that such a goal is extremely hard for embodied ones to attain. By modern, theistic definitions this can easily be considered to be a form of atheism. Also, the description of the demoniac needs to be limited to the demoniac and not generalized indiscriminately. The Gita claims that the demoniac consider the world to be "un-ishwar". It does not say that all who consider the world so are of a demoniac nature. The description of the demoniac in the Gita is long and exhaustive and unless one really exhibits all the symptoms one cannot be put into that category. Indeed, as per Hindu mythology one could be a fervent believer and devotee of some deity and still be very demoniac. Finally the word Ishwar has to be understood very carefully. In Yogic terminology it is not exactly the same as the concept of God in semitic parlance. The Ishwar is a special soul that is ever detached and free from creation and which descends into creation to uphold it and maintain it. Furthermore, the Gita states that this Ishwar is in everything, even in the demoniac. The demoniac do not simply disbelieve, in fact they actively hate this Ishwar within themselves and others "maam atma-para-deheshu pradvishanto abhyasuyakaa". So it is not that the demoniac are simply atheists. They believe that there is a divine essence but they hate it for it stands opposed to their objective, which is the untrammeled indulgence of desire (kama-bhoga-artha). Aurovir (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The thirty of Aditi's brood are there, apart from the three main Gods and Goddesses (Brahmani and Saraswati may be considered two by some people), Ganesha, Hanuman, Bhairavas (Kshetrapalas), Gram devatas and devis, avataras of Shiva, avataras of Vishnu, avataras of Shakti, various Rishis who also are considered to be avataras of Gods and Sankara. Not everybody is a smarta. Tulsidas asked God to take up bow and arrow instead of the flute before he could bow and God had to do that. If you do not consider avataras separate, you may consider them as one. Advaitins would not even agree to the duality of God and men. I am not talking of demonic beings and their philosophies. Hinduism is a many splendoured thing. We should not belittle it by putting it in a straight jacket. Once you say 'Vipra bahudha vadanti', every thing is possible. Regards, Aupmanyav 18:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Tulsidas was a Smarta; for him, Rama was his Ishta-Deva and he recognized that Shiva and Vishnu are one; thus, I believe he said in his Ramayana version, that one who belittles Shiva cannot get Rama's grace. Who worships the thirty devas now? In my opinion, the fall of deva worship came when Krishna subdued Indra's pride when he lifted the Godhavarna mountain in order to show devotees that Sriman Narayana is supreme.

I agree with you that Advaitans do not agree to duality of God and man.

Just because many Hindus worship lesser deites, it does not mean they worship 100 gods. Christians venerate saints, which are lesser deities.

Even in Krishna's time, many people worship spirits but such worship was considered as tamasaic. He also said in the Gita that men who worship devas have limited fruits while those who worship Him does not return to this world. So the Gita itself supports a monotheistic standing. Smartas crafted their own alternative view.

Raj2004 00:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Tulsidas - 'one who belittles Shiva cannot get Rama's grace', that makes it belief in two. But when he was asked whether he worshipped 'Saguna' or 'Nirguna', he said he worshipped 'Nirguna' in mind and 'Saguna' in heart. Hinduism does not see any discripancy in this. Hinduism sees this as a gradation of worship, a school kid would worship 'Saguna', a doctoral student would worship 'Nirguna'. None is wrong. 'Vipra vadanti bahudha', till their reasons are good. Aupmanyav 07:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Worshipping God as a deity (devata) is one way to worship God. Worshipping a particular deity is a matter of individual choice. A deity is an aspect of God (Narayana), and it refers to God. When we worship any deity, we worship God. All the deities refer to God. We have numerous deities in India, but we have only one God. Kanchanamala 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all people classified as 'Hindus' would agree with the above (i.e all deities refer to God) - It's very difficult to make generalisations. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 19:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If the dissenter agrees that his/her preferred deity refers to God, we should have no problem.Kanchanamala 00:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The word Religion is oft refered to the word Dharma. Dharma has a broader meaning and defines more a way of practice while religion refers to the line of faith. Hindu Dharma is to seek God, irrespective of faith, path or means. Hence there were different ways and practices prevelant to follow the Dharma even before Islam and Christiany, and the words religion and religious classification came to India. This descrepancy in understanding appears due to wrong contextual interpretation.[Swami_Vivekananda]'s Chicago addresses can be a good reference to understand the point. But yes, this article needs a lot of improvement.

Additional comment: The devanagri is incorrect. The I belongs with the H not the N. What you have is Hanidu. Get somewhat with the right keyboard to correct it! ex-Lahori

Kanchanmala, hindus have various beliefs, none is wrong. Not all put their faith in a God or a deity. Brahmavadins would say they themselves are Brahman. Aupmanyav 18:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. In English we normally use the word God. If a fellow Hindu chooses to use another word, that should be fine. Worshipping God as a deity (devata) is only one way of worshipping God. It seems to have been popular in India. I would not be surprised if it is native to India. Radhakrishnan has quoted a verse in his book on Bhagavadgita: "yam shaivaa samupaasate shiva iti brahmeti vedaantinah, bauddhaa buddha iti pramaana-patavah karteti naiyyaayikaah; Arhannityatha-jaina-shaasana-rataah karmeti mimaamsakaah, so yam vo vidadhaatu vaanchita-phalam trailokya-naatho harih".Kanchanamala 00:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you have not given the translation, I will not be able to comment. But, surely, no God for me. Aupmanyav 15:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to people worshipping Shiva or Hari, or believing in karma or yajna, to them what they believe. For me, I am that (So'ham). I have no qualities and I do not fulfill anybody's aspirations. Aupmanyav 19:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir, you're most welcome. May "that" bless you. I continue to respect you.Kanchanamala 02:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not anthromorphic. Even if it was, how do I bless myself? Aupmanyav 04:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I just don't know. By the way, does "so'ham" have anything to do with the recent Hindi movie "Banaras"?Kanchanamala 05:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if 'So'ham' has to do with the recent Hindi movie 'Banaras', but it has certainly to do with 'Varanasi', which has always been a city of knowledge and devotion to hindus. Aupmanyav 06:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Kanchanamala 21:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere above is a line on Vishnu killing Shiva and vice-versa ....

One of the ways to understand Hinduism is not a LITERAL reading but to focus on the deep meanings which convey the "spirit" of what needs to be followed ..... Usually this is woven into a tale in the Puranas ONLY (not the Vedas and the Upanishads), for the sake of easier understanding by the populace, but DEFINTELY NOT FOR understanding in the LITERAL SENSE.... This is where prior knowledge and experience help makes a better follower or interpreter of these ideas.....

Dowry is legal if it represents "stri-dhana" i.e. a girl's share of the parents' wealth, given voluntarily by the parents.

Just saw the above line tucked up in this article.... imho the lines need to rephrased

1. DOWRY at all points in time is illegal, NO EXCUSES.......

2. In case the girl parents really share their wealth with their daughter(& her family) without any coercion and on their own

    accord, you would be better off looking at it as a "gift" not "Dowry"
    Dowry refers to the money paid by the bride (and/or her family) to the bridgegroom(and/or his family) at any point in time
    1.   Asking(demanding) for money(and/or articles of commercial value)
    2.   Groom(and/or his family) asking for share of the bride(and her family's) property 
    3.   Use of force / threat in any form to pressurise the family to point(1) and/or (2) within a specific time / event frame....

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.19.225.8 (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Radhakrishnan has quoted a verse in  his book on Bhagavadgita:

"yam shaivaa samupaasate shiva iti brahmeti vedaantinah, bauddhaa buddha iti pramaana-patavah karteti naiyyaayikaah; Arhannityatha-jaina-shaasana-rataah karmeti mimaamsakaah, so yam vo vidadhaatu vaanchita-phalam trailokya-naatho harih".Kanchanamala 00:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Guessing the meaning of the above(per my little knowledge from high school sanskrit) is

yam shaivaa samupaasate shiva iti - Whom Shaivas worship as Shiva brahmeti vedaantinah --> brahma iti vedantinaha - Whom the vedantins worship as Brahma bauddhaa buddha iti pramaana-patavah - Whom Buddhists worship as Buddha karteti naiyyaayikaah --> karta iti naiyyayikah --> this got me too, but looks like -->Whom the naiyyaayikas(?) worship as karta(?) Arhannityatha-jaina-shaasana-rataah --> could not figure this one clearly - this looks like followed by Jains day and night Maybe the sentence is wrongly punctuated - but if you join the above 2 sentencesit would mean Whom the naiyyaayikahs(?) followers of Jains path??, worship as karta? karmeti mimaamsakaah --> What the mimaamsakaah(analysts or thinkers or speaker or philosophers) term as karma(fate or destiny) trailokya-naatho harih --> Ruler of the 3 worlds - Vishnu so yam vo vidadhaatu ---> let That / Him(see the above line) provide you with vaanchita-phalam --> the desired results.

.....

[edit] How should we call India

In the introductory paragraph, first there was no mention of Bharat, secondly what was mentioned was Republic of India. Now what is the correct name? The constitution of India mentions it like this:

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Preamble WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly ..

PART I THE UNION AND ITS TERRITORY 1. Name and territory of the Union.—(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be ..

This makes me think that instead of Republic of India, what should be mentioned is just 'India'. That it is a republic, or secular, or democratic, or socialist, are the qualities that the constitution makers looked forward to. I am sure this point has been discussed. Would anyone like to enlighten a new wikipedian?

India is supposed to be a secular republic.--Dangerous-Boy 21:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the Preamble describes India as Soverign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic. Aupmanyav 02:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

One can say, it is officially Republic of India, and the place that Republic of India represents is, India or Bharat. This can be understood that when Constitution was formed, the people of India[then consisting of many small states] gave themselves, the Constitution and formed a republic.

[edit] no references

There's no references for this article.....--Dangerous-Boy 08:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is a dravid?

Of course, Captain of the Indian Cricket team. All South Indians (Other than Brahmins?)? All North Indians (other than Brahmins)? The word is floated around to divide Hindus. This is what my initial search tells me: Padma Purana: Dakshin and Dravid are mentioned separately. (http://www.swaminarayanwales.org.uk/Articles/articledetails.asp?ArticleID=11) The Dravida, Brihacharana and Pericharana are all immigrants from Tamilnadu, and the speak Tamil. (q=cache:byJVeblm7ugJ:www.lifescapesmemoirs.net/chatterjee/religion/religion.pdf+dravid%2Bdesh+scriptures&hl=en&gl=in&ct=clnk&cd=39) The five Pancha Dravida tribes are Karnataka or Kannada, Andhra or Telugu, Dravida or Tamil, Maharashtra or Marathi, and Gurjara or Gujerati. (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:NEeNBGRXT9sJ:www.hindunet.org/saraswati/civilization1.PDF+dravid%2Bdesh+scriptures&hl=en&gl=in&ct=clnk&cd=69) But were not Gurjaras supposed to be of scythian descent? And what about fair skins of many Gujaratis, Marathis and others also, even Tamils. What about Rajasthanis, UPians, Madhya Pradeshis, Biharis, Bengalis and Oriyas, Jharkhandis, Chattisgarhis; does one certify them as Aryans? Or skin colour and nose-breadth are the identifying characterstics? Are you sure that Himachalis and Uttaranchalis are Aryans? Kashmiris, of course, would make the purest Aryans??

Before anyone brands all Indians other than those who may be supposed to have Aryan blood as Dravidians in the way missionaries, muslims and Ambedkarites do it, let us get this straightened out. Aupmanyav 05:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support the statement that 'arya'ns were a people who emigrated to India. The word "arya" in Sanskrit refers to laudable (Sanskrit "anavadya") traits in an individual or people.Kanchanamala 05:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Kanchanmala, there are various theories about Aryans. None would be accepted by all without proof. Do not try something in which great scholars have failed. Aupmanyav 18:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you have proved my point.Kanchanamala 01:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have proved nothing. It would be wrong to say that there is no proof that Aryans were indigenous, similarly saying that there is no proof that Aryans were immigrants also is not correct. The matter is being researched. My gotra is Upamanyu and he is famously mentioned to be a Kamboja (Afghanistan). One thing that we generally forget that the Indian influence and relations in antiquity extended far beyond the subcontiment. Uttarapatha had close relations (marital also, Gandhari and Madri) with India, Kauravas hailed from Uttarakuru, Madras hailed from Uttaramadra. We also knew of a Kushadwip (grassland, probably the steppes of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan) from where the handsome King Dhrishtadyumna came to participate on the side of Pandavas in the Mahabharata war. The Tocharians of Khotan are mentioned in our books as Tusharas. The valley of the river Hari-Rud (Haraiva) and area around modern Merv was inhabited by Arians (Does that ring a bell?) in the time of Alexander. Please go to Wikipages on Ancient_India_and_Central_Asia and Uttarapatha for more information. Aupmanyav 06:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with the research. I shall be watching the journals of learned societies. If you happen to notice anything before I do, please let us all know.Kanchanamala 22:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav ... Good luck on your research -

As you have rightly pointed out

1. India's influence (or Hindu like culture) transgressed greatly beyond the Indian subcontinent we know of today 2. There is no proof about anything right now, though it is amply clear that the Aryan theory started after Indology studies(and establishment of the Boden chair at Oxford University), which was in turn started not by curiosity, but more to know of what weak points existed which could be then used to attain better conversion of Hindus to Christianity (See the original print of Monier Monier Williams Sanskrit to English dictionary for a lengthy first hand account.....)

Now I am NOT Here to launch an anti_Christian tirade ....

My take is ..............

Why worry about whether there were Aryans or Dravidans ?

1. Why cannot ALL HINDUS stand UNITED in respecting ALL PEOPLE OF ALL RACES WHO GAVE THIS FORMIDABLE VENERABLE HONORABLE AND AN INCLUSIVE BROADMINDED RELIGION TO US ?????

2. Why should we all NOT get past these minor hiccups to confront the major issues w.r.t Hinduism? and how Hinduism can help us foster a better society whichever part of the world we live in?

A poser to Aupmanyav and other like-minded individuals (regarding to the philosophy of Wikipedia itself)

While I appreciate that Wikipedia needs to be thorough and hence emphasizes on proofs and references...... What I mean is then how do you rectify history's aberrations? The winner always writes history, rather their own version of history which is NOT always accurate.... Though you present both parts of the argument , it definitely is NOT the same... this is the cliche of works based on evidence(much like a court, where arguments and evidence decides or determines what OCCURED, and lack of evidence has produced results totally counter productive to the reason that courts were established for in the first place) 16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)60.50.255.181Kumar(v_ram_kumar@yahoo.com)

The discipline you're looking for is historiography. Orpheus 16:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

08:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)~~ Orpheus, I am looking at the implementation part of that in Wikepedia... How to improve the accuracy of data in Wikipedia when the reference / predicate data that Wikipedia uses itself is NOT accurate? THis comment is here only because I feel( very disputable) that recording currently present in history (especially Indology) is neither accurate nor impartial. 08:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)~

[edit] Iqbal's 'Hindosatan Hamara'

Would some one (if they consider it appropriate) please include these two links about Iqbal's 'Hindosatan Hamara'. I do not know the process. http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2005-daily/06-12-2005/oped/o2.htm, http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_3-11-2003_pg3_4. Aupmanyav 04:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Will someone please add these to "External links" as pertaining to Iqbal's "Hindostan Hamara"?Kanchanamala 09:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] newyear

I have removed "and not very many people know what those rituals are" from the Death ritual paragraph as it is clearly a personal opinion.

The New year subsection need re-writing too.Bharatveer 10:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

B.G.Tilak opined that start of new year on Purnima or Amavasya relates to a calender change around 1,400 BCE when Vedanga Jyotishya was included. Some people retained the old system. Aupmanyav 14:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ALL names of such "new year" s such as Vishu, Bihu etc should be mentiones . Bharatveer 14:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nepal adopts a secular way

Nepal, the only Hindu Kingdom in the world, has now chosen to be a secular state by a unanimous vote in the parliament. Sorry, Hindutvavadis (though great news for christian missionaries). Aupmanyav 10:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a great development. Hindus in Nepal themselves wanted to get rid of that so called Hindu Kingdom. King in Nepal was considered as incarnation of Lord Vishnu which is something absurd and a great insult to belief of billion Hindus. His policies were against Hindu ideas, his son was a criminal. Secular nation status for Nepal is better than such dictators who use Hinduism for their personal agendas. Missionaries are already active in Nepal, just like Hindu denominations like ISKCON, Himalayan acadamy , Hindu Yoga wave etc. are active all over the world. Let Faiths interact peacefully, afterall Hindus don't want to become like Saudi Arabia. - Holy Ganga ^talk

11:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is totally a misinformation. It was a consipracy hatched by Indian Marxists. it was Indian Marxist who organised and funded the so called Marxists / Maoist revolution in Nepal. Nepali Hindus were never involved and never wanted the revolutions. The so called street demonstrations for democracy etc were stage managed with the support of Christian West.

The recent revelation that the Marxists have recruited a numnber of innocent childrens by brain wash in to their fold by force. Pl never forget this.

AFAIK, wikipedia is not the place to discuss these things.Bharatveer 14:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A correction was needed on the page because of the recent developments. Aupmanyav 09:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the word 'Hindu'

Kindly refer to the article on 'Hinduism' where the origins of the word 'Hindu' are explained succintly. I did not remove the last paragraph on the express wish of Cygnus-Hansa, otherwise that also is not necessary in my view. Then, look up in the description on this page, which is trash. What is the use of mentioning what the British did in 1930's, they left India 58 years ago. The point that Hindus are only those who go by Vedic traditions has been rejected by courts in India. In the latest judgement, the Kerala High Court desisted from defining a Hindu. Wikipedians contrubuting to 'Hindu-Hinduism' pages should realise that Hinduism accepts ALL philosophical conclusions that its adherents arrive at in good faith (Vipra bahudha vadanti) and rejects NONE, not even Tantra and Aghorapanth. Please do not foist your personal views as Hinduism. The information should be short and relevant. It should also be presented in an attractive form. Wiki-Hindu is a window for non-Hindus to Hinduism. Thanks. Aupmanyav 13:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The word Hindu can be used by Wikipedia to denote Indians of India who directly or indirectly follow the Vedas. It would then include the Jainas, the Bauddhas, and the Sikhs. Kanchanamala 20:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

People, kindly let me know if it would be all right to change the paragraph on the lines of what is mentioned in Wiki/Hinduism? Aupmanyav 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In order for this article to make any sense, we editors should agree on a delineation between what belongs here and what fits better under Hinduism. Some small degree of overlap between the two articles should be tolerated, but not paragraph after paragraph discussing various deities, sects of Hinduism, etc. like we have now. Also, since the issue of what it means to be a Hindu is sensitive in some circles, the article should rely exclusively on authorities (with complete with appropriate cites and sources). Right now unsourced statements outnumber properly sourced ones by a large margin. --Smithfarm 18:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

'Hindu is merely a continuation of a Persian / Muslim term that became popular only within the last 1300 years.' That is not correct. Avesta is dated to at least 3,000 BP. Avesta mentions Hapta-Hendu. The Persians have used the word since that time. Aupmanyav 19:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Only an ignorant can interpret it like that. How can anyone be so de-gradably myopic? It is clearly mentioned in various texts that it is upto the reader/listener/observer to interpret in its own way, so obviously it is a sole interpretation of the person who thinks that this is what it means. And I, with my understanding of my religious texts, as a Hindu, can also re-interpret my understanding of same text, in brief, like this: "The body of Man is a consummate of Nature and Nature Gods and will finally be merged unto the Nature itself."..and of at least 2 decades of centuries this is what it has meant..and probably that is why, these texts were not to be read by everyone and all. -Girish Shukla

'An alternative explanation is that the word 'indu' originates from Rigveda with reference to a mythological plant juice offered for oblations, while the 'h' represents auspiciousness or delight, thus implying that one who propitiates by drinking soma is a hindu.' The reference given to this line is the personal web-site of an Engineer, Mr. Subhash C. Sharma. He is mentioned to have taught courses on engineering subjects to university students. But that does not make him an authority in Indian History. The line above should be taken as his personal opinion on the subject and therefore, the reference is not valid. Further more, he has given no explanation why 'h' in the word 'hindu' should imply auspiciousness or delight. The topic has been streched unnecessarily and needs to be shortened by removing the chaff. Aupmanyav 19:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph mentions that untill 19th century, the word 'hindu' denoted all people living in India. This is not correct. Muslims have been here since the 8th century, and christians since 16th century. There were christians and muslims who had come much earlier even in the first century. Then there were Parsis and Jews also. All these cannot be clubbed as hindus. The topic needs a total overhaul. Aupmanyav 19:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The topic ends with 'According to Vish Ayengar, all the spiritual traditions of India are inspired by the Vedas.' Who is this gentleman? No reference is provided. Furthermore, it is not true that all spiritual traditions of India are inspired by the Vedas. There is no mention of the Mother Godess in the Vedas. A host of deities dear to modern hindus, like Ganesha, Skanda, or Hanuman, have no mention in the Vedas, not even Rama and Krishna. Aupmanyav 19:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting for other editors to respond. Aupmanyav 15:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu Barbarism in Vedic times, Sacrifice of Man (purusha) in Rigveda

From http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10090.htm

Rigveda Chapter –10 Hymn XC

6 When Gods prepared the sacrifice with Purusa as their offering. Its oil was spring, the holy gift was autumn,summer was the wood. 7 They balmed as victim on the grass Purusa born in earliest time. With him the Deities and all Sadhyas and Rsis sacrificed. 8 From that great general sacrifice the dripping fat was gathered up. 11 When they divided Purusa how many portions did they make? 15 Seven fencing-sticks had he,thrice seven layers of fuel were prepared, When the Gods, offering sacrifice, bound, as their victim, Purusa. 16 Gods, sacrificing, sacrificed the victim these were the earliest holy ordinances. The Mighty Ones attained the height of heaven, there where the Sidhyas, Gods of old, are dwelling.

This tells about sacrifice of man on stakes by fire. see my text on Talk:Vedic religion.It describes that a man is burnt in fire, its molten fat is gathered up & its meat is divided in portions. As per the earlier customs the meat of sacrifices was considered holy & was distributed as a sacrament(for eating). It proves that early hindus were barbaric cannibals who used to sacrifice humans to gods. Other(hidden) verses in this purusha-sukta are just hyperbolic imaginations to glorify the misdeed. --Anirudh777 11:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is simply beyond the reach of your intelligence to understand 'Purusha-Sukta', stay with your Bible or Qur'an, whatever it is. Aupmanyav 16:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude...seriously...watch the racism. There's no evidence, as far as you know, that he is either Muslim or Christian. Also, his little section is reasonably backed up with evidence...and he does not seem to have any derogatory intents in it. If you can't live with what he said...then disprove him...or otherwise...keep your racism to yourself. There's no point in spreading hate here.

The first verse of 'Purusha Sukta' says:

Thousands of heads has the great being, Thousands of eyes has He, and thousands of legs;

He manifests the world, He stands beyond the count.

This is the Purusha the verse is talking about. Only one who has not read the verse, and also is a fool will say that it is about a human being. That is the Purusha that is sacrificed to create the universe, 'Its oil was spring, the holy gift was autumn, summer was the wood'. A person totally bereft of understanding of poetic imagination, a dunce, would see it as 'a man is burnt in fire, its molten fat is gathered up & its meat is divided in portions'. That is why I said it would not be possible for Aniruddh777 to understand 'Purusha Sukta'. For detailed meaning of the Hymn kindly go to http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-1.html. Aupmanyav 15:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Here I strongly back Aupmanyav. Cygnus_hansa 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Referring to the entire creation ('srishti'), the seer ('rishi') says, "All this is verily 'purusha', whatever has been created, and whatever will be created."Kanchanamala 08:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Names for Hindus

I removed the following from the Gentoo disambiguation page as it wasn't helping disambiguate. Perhaps it could be included in an appropriate section of Hindu for alternative names or names for similar or sub-concepts (e.g.: Vedic follower, Vaishnava, yogi).

'''Gentoo''' was a term used in the 18th century, synonymous with "[[Hindu]]". For example, see ''[[The Gentoo Code]]''.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 02:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe. It was not very funny. Aupmanyav 15:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appellation

I have mentioned that the name "Hindustan" and "Hindu" were external appellations and not something residents of ancient India called themselves in the first paragraph - to say that Hindustan means land of Hindus but without mentioning that Hindus themselves are the residents of the land West of River Sindh looks like a round reference.

Also refer to these views of Radhakrishnan - "The people on the Indian side of the Sindhu were called Hindu by the Persian and the later western invaders (The Hindu View of Life by Dr Radhakrishnan pg 12). The term 'Hindu' according to Dr Radhakrishnan had originally a territorial and not a creedal significance. It implies residence in a well defined geographical area". (Bramchari Siddheswar Shai v State of West Bengal, 1995 AIR Supreme Court 2089—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TerryJo (talk • contribs) .

The terms Hindustan and Hindu were not external appellations.There are references of these words in many ancients texts like Bruhaspati agama .-Bharatveer 13:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Read Stephen Knapp - one of the links in the main article (whom the Sangh Parivar/Hindu Nationalists cite so often)- We must remember that the term “hindu” is not even Sanskrit. Numerous scholars say it is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So how can such a name truly represent the Vedic path or culture? And without the Vedic literature, there is no basis for “Hinduism.”Most scholars feel that the name “Hindu” was developed by outsiders, invaders who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu River properly. Some sources report that it was Alexander the Great who first renamed the River Sindhu as the Indu, dropping the beginning “S”, thus making it easier for the Greeks to pronounce. This became known as the Indus. This was when Alexander invaded India around 325 B.C. His Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the Indus as India, a name used especially during the British regime. TerryJ-Ho 18:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think this encyclopoedia got it wrong -

The word Hindu " is taken from medieval Persian " Hindu " representing the ancient Avesta hendaea or a dweller on the Sindhu River and the land comprising Hindus as Hindustan.[2]

Terry ,Fortunately we NOW know "those kinds" of scholars.-Bharatveer 04:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So what if the term 'hindu' is not Sanskrit, it has been in long use. Which language has not borrowed words? Vedic literature and philosophy are now a part of Hinduism but not the whole of Hinduism; just as the many people who came from Central India (including Aryans) are now a part of Hindu fold. Hinduism is and was there even without Vedas. Much before Alexander, the Persians called the land and people beyond Indus as Hindu. Zorastrian Avesta mentions the movement of Aryans from Hapta-Hendu, their fifteenth home to Rangha (most probably Caspian Sea shores). Aupmanyav 17:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Before talking about Hinduism first give the logical and proper definition to be a Hindu in India, Nepal, USA or anywhere in this world. Muslmins, Christens, Buddhists can certainly be identified. How do u define a Hindu? Dhammafriend 18:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dhammafriend, you are hardly behaving like a buddhist. You are transgressing many of the noble eight-fold paths. Please, if you are an intelligent person and respect Buddha's teaching, desist from doing so. "A person is hindu if he accepts that he is one and follows his 'dharma' (duty/righteous action). Hinduism has the freedom of personal belief." Should I think that I have answered your question satisfactorily? Aupmanyav 18:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Folks, "Hindu" is not a Sanskrit word. Let us keep it that way. Also, the whole section entitled "In Scripture (Shastra)" is suspect, and needs to be reveiwed. Kanchanamala 10:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Would the editor who included the reference from VHP in 'Baarhaspatyua Samhita'(?, Spelling mistake, how do you pronounce 'Baarhaspatyua' and what does it mean?) give some more information about the book. Since it mentions 'hindus' and 'hindustan', it seems to be a 20th Century publication. Who was the writer of this book, Ashtekar? The reference is false, and it is a shame on VHP to resort to such tactics. Hinduism can stand the tide even without such things. Aupmanyav 07:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that the opening 3 lines in the section "Origins of the word Hindu" be removed. The citation [6] is not an authoritative source.Kanchanamala 04:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Kanchanmala, one can find 6,000 such references saying the same thing. Avesta calls the Sapta-Sindhu region as Hapta-Hendu. They were also Aryans and lived in Sapta-Sindhu (the fifteenth homeland of Aryans according to them) region before moving on, worshipped Agni, drank Haoma (Soma), even had varna divisions. What is your objection to that? Do you believe in hindu-bindu theory? Being ultra-fundamentalist hindu rebounds back on us. Wikipedia is refered to by people from all over the world. Do you want us to be a laughing stock before them. Be reasonable. Aupmanyav 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion, is that citation [6] acceptable?Kanchanamala 02:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation [6] is perfectly acceptable (only in the first part). It is the most commonly held view in public as well as academia. Aupmanyav 07:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Sorry for the mixup. Revised Aupmanyav 07:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Okey-doke.Kanchanamala 22:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hindu texts are not limited only to the Vedas, I have always recognized this fact. So what if the word Hindu is not found in Vedas. Its original word Sapta Sindhu is very much there. And Hindu occurs in later texts as Bhavishya Purana. I do not know why this hubbub. Cygnus_hansa 21:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Hindu" is not a Sanskrit word. If you can't agree with that statement, let us agree to disagree.Kanchanamala 00:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, 'Hindu' is a 'tatsama' word (a borrowed word, same as in another language) adopted in Sanskrit and mentioned in later puranas. If it was not exactly the same and changed in its new language, it would be called a 'tadbhava' (changed to its new form, 'originated from that') word.Aupmanyav 07:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Sanskrit ('samskrita') is one language which does not work like that.Kanchanamala 08:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu Shudra

To understand why I removed to the right title please read Varnas Dharma. If you don't understand our Hinduism then study well. Don't revert without any discussion Hindushudra 18:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I request wikiadministrators to read Varnas, RigVeda Chapter 10, Para 90 and Verse 12 for more details. AS well we our holy book Geeta Chapter 4 and Verse 13 forinformation. The anti-Hindu people are reverting contents unnecessarily ..Hindushudra 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Varna-ashrama-dharma: so called when the system comprising 'varna' and 'ashrama' is adopted as a dharma.Kanchanamala 10:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Varnas and Shudra Concept

Please don't misunderstand. There is nothing insulting to call any Hindu a shudra. Understand Varnashrama dharma in a present situation. Also read ShivDharma concept in Maharashtr. If Maratha feel insuting to be called as Shudra then you can convert to other religion. Being lower-cast to Brahmins is Dharma for every Hindu. Shudra123 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bhagavadgita says that God created the four "varna"s classified according to "guna" and "karma" ["chaaturvarnyam mayaa srishtam guna-karma-vibhaagashah"]. All four are equally significant in the scheme of things. By sheer birth, everyone is a "shudra". The scriptures say that it is "samskara" which helps make an individual born again or twice-born ("dvija")["janmanaa jaayate shudrah samskaaraat dvija ucyate"]. Being born to Shudra parents should not make life unjustly demeaning.Kanchanamala 07:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am making the same point that Hindu is a born Shudra who can become a Brahmin by Karma Veda and Geeta are moral guides. So ask anti-Hindu people not to revert pages without proper debate and discussion. Shudra123 09:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Shudra123, please see the following link (What Wikipedia is not) - this page is not a soapbox for your discussion of caste and varna issues within Hinduism. It's a general article about the term 'Hindu'. These issues might seem like the most important aspect of Hinduism to yourself, but for most readers a simple sub-section describing the details (or links to the appropriate articles) would be enough. I actually agree with you that someone born into a so-called 'shudra' family can become a qualified 'Brahmin'. But that is not the debate. Please see NPOV. Regards, ys, Gouranga(UK) 11:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Shudra123. Lord Krishna has clearly said that he gives different propensities to people at the time of birth (Janmat Varnah) and not (Vamshat Varnah). A brahmin is one who is a scholar and passes on his knowledge to other people. Dr. Ambedkar, though he changed his religion, was a true brahmin. There may be many other examples like that. I am a 'vamshat brahmin', (only born in a brahmin family) but served a commercial organisation all my life. It would not be correct to call me a brahmin. I am a shudra. Aupmanyav 19:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The information given matches the holy scriptures. It is absolute true that every born Shudra Hindu tries to become Brahmin and everyone has right to become a Brahmin. No Hindu scriptures support rigid Varna system. Only based on Karma all shudras can become Brahmin. Brahmin-gaand-maaru 20:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, I'm sure that this information could be added either to this article, or to Hinduism. It is not suitable material for the opening paragraph of the article, however. Ollie 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But I feel the it is the information should be known to every Hindu and all others. It will shut mouth of those people who defame Hinduism with caste. Caste is not supported by Hindu Scriptures. Only Varnas are supported. Most of the people use caste to defame Hindus Brahmin-gaand-maaru

I understand your concerns, but Wikipedia is not the place to resolve this. Remember that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not a soapbox (see WP:NOT). Also, articles on Wikipedia should be written from a neutral point of view.

Also, Wikipedia:Lead section, part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style states that The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Your own version of the lead section does not clearly state the standard definition of Hindu and is not an accurate summary of the article.

As I have said above, I am sure that if you address these concerns, it is possible to include the information within the article. I hope this helps you to understand why myself and others have been reverting your changes, and I hope we can come to an amicable solution to the issue! Ollie 22:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well explained. I am in total agreement with Ollie's viewpoint as above. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A case in point: just mention what the Bhagavadgita says, and let the readers draw their own conclusions.Kanchanamala 20:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dbachmann's merger proposal

It was suggested by Dbachmann that this article be merged to Hinduism [3]. I think that all religion articles should then be also be merged, not only Hindu/Hinduism. At present, for example Christian and Muslim are separate articles. If we can decide that all religion articles be merged in the same way, this could also be done here. But the scope of Hindu or Christian is also a bit different from the scope of Hinduism or Christianity. --RF 22:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if some confusion has arisen here. {{main}} got changed to {{merge}} and then changed back. Dbachmann's edit summary "main article of a main article?" doesn't suggest merging either, but more imply that the {{main}} template should be removed, something which I would agree with. But if the merger proposal was intended, then I would disagree. As stated, there is a fair difference between Hindu and Hinduism in terms of an article, and the change would set a precedent for merging articles for other large religions. Ollie 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Christianity was born in Europe and Islam in Arabia. They did not originate on the Indian subcontinent. They do not belong in the article on Hindu.Kanchanamala 06:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. These people were only making a comparision between their pages and ours. Just writing something here does not mean much, it should have substance. Read and learn more. Regards Aupmanyav 18:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - makes no sense.Baka man 03:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I incorrect in saying that Christianity and Islam did not originate on the Indian subcontinent?Kanchanamala 04:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not wrong, Kanchanmala. Bakaman, I suppose, is opposing Dbachmann's proposal. Aupmanyav 09:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks.Kanchanamala 22:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling some people are confused here. The merger proposal was Hindu -> Hinduism, Muslim -> Islam, Christian -> Christianity, Jew -> Judaism etc. That IMO does make sense because Hindu/Hinduism, Sikh/Sikhism are pretty much the same thing. One is the people, the other is the concepts and beliefs. The followers and what is followed are very closely related, so I Support the merge. Gizza^Chat ^© 10:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I support.Kanchanamala 22:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, could we do this first with Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist pages (why hinduism first?). Aupmanyav 10:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aupmanya. Let's see the merge of xtian and muslim first, see how it works out and model it from their's.--D-Boy 11:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the proposal, not only for Hindu>Hinduism, but for all of the above, the order really doesn't matter, in an ideal world it isn't a competition. Sfacets 11:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who a Hindu is and Beliefs in Hindus

The 2 different topics are mixed. Hindus have different beliefs they have unity in diversity. Innocent123 13:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Scripture (Shastra)

Once again I would like to point out that this entire section is suspect. If the modern word Hindu appears in a text, that text cannot be a Purana. A modern word appearing in an ancient text is self-contradictory.Kanchanamala 15:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

++ungood, I have been trying to improve the article. May I know why you have twice reverted it?Kanchanamala 05:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Fellow Editors, may I request you to read my version of the article dated 20 December 2006 [intro and first section] and please tell me where did I go wrong? I did not venture any further because it got reverted twice.Kanchanamala 10:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objective or subjective

I was under the impression that Wikipedia was meant to present unbiased objective articles. This excerpt from the article on Hindu sounds like a very biased subjective opinion: "Hinduism is the worlds most true religion. it is the best religion and is better than the other religion. The other religions are not bad but they are not as good as hinduism." I'm not suggested that these statements are necessarily wrong or right; only that they are certainly not unbiased or objective. Am I wrong about the nature of Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia meant to give opinion and subjective viewpoints? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.83.122.238 (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

That paragraph was added by one editor and fairly quickly removed because it doesn't sit well with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. So, you're right about the nature of Wikipedia, and in this case the departure from that nature was corrected. Orpheus 06:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the paragraph is wrong. The paragraph should be moderated. That is what editing is all about.Kanchanamala 06:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

The subject-matter of the article on Hindu is Hindu. It cannot be neutral. One should not revert anything in the article on the basis of neutrality. Let us not make a mockery of the rules that govern Wikipedia. Also, any entry should not be partial or lopsided, that is, one viewpoint claiming to represent all the Hindus.Kanchanamala 06:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persian/Urdu script

I think Persian/Urdu script (ہندو) for the word Hindu in first line is relevant as it is neither Sanskrit nor Hindi but Persian. The inclusion of the script is an acknowledgement and first-hand information to the reader about the origins of the word.

(PS: I remember someone claiming the word "Hanud" (ہنود) is an offensive term for Hindus. In fact, "Hanud" is plural of the word "Hindu" based on Arabic and Persian grammer. This word is in no way offensive neither is Yahud which is Arabic plural of Yahudi; meaning jew.)

Szhaider 12:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't find the use of Persian/Urdu script/term offensive, but I do find it irrelevant. A couple of points:

The word Hindu is Hindi, even though it is derived from Persian. To give an analogy: the word language traveled from Old Latin -> Old French -> English, but you wouldn't argue that it is not an English word !
Shouldn't the origin information be in the Etymology section of the article instead of the lead? By the above logic, all greek origin terms will need to be spelled out in Greek alphabet, in the lead.
Persian and Urdu do share (almost) the same script, but clearly Urdu had nothing to do with the origin of the term Hindu. So labeling ہندو as Urdu is as appropriate/inappropriate as labeling हिन्दु Marathi.

So I think the the Persian spelling should be removed from the lead; although if it helps, it can be included in the "Origins of the word Hindu" section. Abecedare 18:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken! In this case Persian script should be added in etymology section. What do you say? Szhaider 18:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I found the following footnote citation regarding the origin of the term "Hindu" that I do not think is noted on the page now. Perhaps this citation is relevant? It is from A. L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India: A Survey of the Culture of the Indian Sub-Continent Before the Coming of the Muslims. (Grove Press, Inc.: New York, 1954). On page 1 Basham writes: "Of the two river systems, that of the Indus, now mainly in Pākistān, had the earliest civilization, and gave its name to India." This sentence in the main text has the following footnote appearing on the same page: "The Indians knew this river as Sindhu, and the Persians, who found difficulty in pronouncing an initial s, called it Hindu. From Persia the word passed to Greece, where the whole of India became known by the name of the western river. The ancient Indians knew their sub-continent as Jambudvīpa (the continent of the jambu tree) or Bhāratavarşa (the Land of the sons of Bharata, a legendary emperor).... The latter name has been in part revived by the present Indian government. With the Muslim invasion the Persian name returned in the for Hindustān, and those of its inhabitants who followed the old religion became knows as Hindūs."

I did a Google search and found the following page that provides alternative views from the "Sindu" story and also provides citations regarding the word "Hindu", including: "a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word Hindu as “chore [thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], and ghulam [slave].” In another dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (Part One, p. 615) the Persian meaning of the word Hindu is further described as barda (obedient servant), sia faam (balck color) and kaalaa (black). So these are all derogatory expressions for the translation of the term hindu in the Persian label of the people of India." http://www.stephen-knapp.com/about_the_name_Hindu.htm Please note that I am completely ignorant of the facts of this matter and know nothing of Persian language, so I provide this link only so those who are more expert can review the claims there. Perhaps there is more disagreement about the word than is currently documented in the Wiki article.

And here is another web article that dismisses the "Sindu" stuff and makes a case for Vedic Sanskrit: "Hindu -- a person propitiated by Indu (the Vedic libation). Note, Hindu -- a compound word with Sanskrit roots (i.e. H + indu) -- indicates a liaison between H (sounding 'H' as in Hut, and implying auspiciousness or delight) and Indu or indu (meaning Vedic libation)." http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/hindu_hinduism.html

A citation related to the Vedic Sanskrit hypothesis appears in Apte, p. 246 (second column), which says that "इंदु is said to mean in the Veda a drop of Soma juice, a bright drop or spark; सुतास इंन्वः Rv. 1.16.6". And use of ह as an emphatic particle is documented in Apte p. 1021, left column, with the remark that "it is often used expletively without any particular signification, especially in Vedic literature". Buddhipriya 05:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baarhaspatyua Samhita

Does anyone have more knowledge of this? It appears on VHP America websites as quotes, and nowhere else. I don't believe that this makes it a sufficiently strong reference to be quoted here. Imc 19:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Changes - Sattelitesqdf

Since you have asked me to explain my changes to the article, I will explain.

Change #1)

Old: "Thus, Hindu is merely a continuation of a Persian term that became popular only within the last 1300 years. “Hinduism” was not labelled as such until the Indian populace accepted its use. Nonetheless, the term is commonly applied retroactively as a broad term to denote followers of the diverse traditions of "Santana Dharma".

New: "Thus, Hindu is a continuation of a Persian term that became popular only within the last 1300 years. In this way, we can understand that it is not a valid Sanskrit term, it has to do with the true Vedic culture. To the Iranians (including in their religious texts) the Punjab region (Sapta-Sindhu) was known as Hapta-Hindu and this was the heartland of the Vedas. So Hindus have adopted this term because "Hind" (India) is their fatherland (pitribhumi.) Nonetheless, the term has been applied retroactively as a broad term to denote followers of the diverse traditions of "Santana Dharma"."

The reason I changed this is because the term Hindu of course because Hind or India is the fatherland of the Hindus, from pilgrimages in Kunyakumari to the South, Amarnath in the North, Dwarka in the West and Kamakhya in the East. It is essential to understand this for someone who is not a Hindu. It makes sense as to why the term was adopted by the Sanatan followers. Also, in Persian texts, the term Hapta-Hindu is used to describe the Punjab region.

Change #2)

Old: "Truly out of Hindu practices and beliefs a Hindu is one who practices Bhakti (devotion) on any form of God (see Brahman & Paramatma) or who practices one of the yoga systems for the purpose of Moksha."

New: "Truly out of Hindu practices and beliefs a Hindu is one who follows his/her own faith of Sva-Dharma, practices Bhakti (devotion) on any form of God (who is Brahman or creator of the universe), practices virtuous path of life believing in the concept of Karma for the purpose of Moksha."

A Hindu does not have to practice Yoga. I never practice Yoga. No one I know practices Yoga. A Hindu is merely a person why practices Karma and Bhakti for the achievement of Moksha or Mukti. That is the Sanatan Dharam.

Change #3)

New: "Then Hinduism is not just a religion; it is also a philosophy and a culture ("Sanatan Parampara," the "Eternal Tradition.")"

This is important for the non-Hindu to understand because the term Hindu has also been applied to people who do not practice Hindu Dharam but practice many other traditions. For example many non-Hindus are also named in Sanskrit. Also, many non-Hindus also celebrate Hindu festivals. Many non-Hindus also perform Yoga. Plus, Veer Savarkar the freedom-fighter said that anyone that accepts India as their fatherland is a Hindu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.32.205 (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Why the focus on Siva-dharma? Siva is not the only way people perceive God, so adding Siva-dharma is incorrect, and I myself am a staunch Saivite.Kingrom 00:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your discussing this on the talk page. In response:

You say above "the term Hindu of course because Hind or India is the fatherland of the Hindus"

I would argue that this not be included because it is original research. It is an opinion, and not one supported by any documented evidence that I can see (or that has been provided so far). If a number of scholars or religious traditions support the theory then it could be included as a referenced opinion, but not as a fact.

In reply to your comment: "A Hindu does not have to practice Yoga. I never practice Yoga. No one I know practices Yoga."

The article says "or Yoga" not "just Yoga" - giving Yoga as one tradition, not the only one. I would agree however, that the sentence does need some re-writing to make it more universal. I made some attempt at that just now and removed some speculative sentences.

What does everyone think? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good improvements on Who is a Hindu

In the section for Who Is A Hindu the line "follows any of the Hindu schools of philosophy or traditions, such as Shaivism, Smarta, Advaita Vedanta, Dvaita etc." may perhaps incorrectly include the term Shaivism as a philosophy. The general term Shaivism, meaning "having someting to do with Shiva" is pretty general and refers more to a cultic alignment than a philosophical school. There are indeed philosophical schools that are associated with Shaivism, I am not sure if it is worth going into that detail at that point in the overview article. If by traditions we mean major groups centered on particular expressions of the divine, the Vaishnava and Devi cults are of the same magnitute as Shaiva. The term Smarta is also aligned along the cultic axis, mainly referring to the effort to get the various cultic groups to show mutual respect for one another. The dualism/non-dualism issue is indeed where the philosophy part gets going. For example you could have a Saiva Dualist come to blows with a Saiva Non-Dualist. Buddhipriya 01:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct Buddhipriya! I have been very careful to source virtually every statement in the section, in order to avoid frequent edit wars and POV insertions. I think that sentence, though basically correct, is the only one unreferenced at the moment. Can you please make the correction (since I am not as knowledgable regarding denominations/sects etc) and if possible, add a reference ? Abecedare 01:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me see if I can find a reference or two, and then I will make a small adjustment. I think the sentence may work better if it is split into two assertions, each of which can be supported. Buddhipriya 01:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes; also it may be shortened, since now we have the Tilak quote cited by the Supreme Court of India (how much more reliable can one possibly get ? :-) ) essentially making the same point. The baton is in your hands! Abecedare 01:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I pass the baton back to you for further changes. I added three citations. The two for philosophy will withstand any challenge as they have been forced upon unwilling Indology students for many years. The citation to Tattwananda is more obscure but very good on some of the subsects. Let me know if you want anything else in particular. I enjoy our collaboration. Buddhipriya 02:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Beware of the Tilak quote, as it is vague in some respects and use of his name could be a magnet attracting nationalist jingoism. I have enormous respect for Tilak, by the way, and consider his commentary on the Gita to be very worth reading. Buddhipriya 02:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The court ruling prefaces the Tilak quote by "Ultimately, reference is made to the working formula evolved by Tilak and is found to be adequate and satisfactory formula", so I think it is defensible as a definition for us too. As the earlier Supreme court quote shows, and as everyone here undoubtedly appreciates, it is very difficult to derive a universal definition of a Hindu - so perhaps Tilak's is as good as it gets; and using it is definitely preferable to the quixotic quest of arriving at a consensus over our own definition here on wikipedia :-)

Also now the section has a good coverage of opinions from "western" scholars, Indian academicians and nationalists. Abecedare 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, let me point out a third time that the entire section, formerly known as "In Scripture (Shastra)", the contents of which appear prominently in your version of the article, is highly suspect. If the modern word "Hindu" appears in any Sanskrit text, then that text cannot be a Purana per se. A modern word appearing in an ancient text is self-contradictory.Kanchanamala 10:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Kanchanamala, are you referring to the Baarhaspatyua Samhita quote ? That part was in the article before I starting editing it, and its relevance is not clear to me either (also, the sourcing is very weak - a letter to the editor in a VHP America newsletter). If that is the part you object to too, we can mark it with verification needed tag and unless an editor comes forward to correct/justify the inclusion, we can delete that quote. Thanks for bringing this issue up and let me know if I understood you correctly. Abecedare 16:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, you got it right. Thanks.Kanchanamala 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the question of authenticity and relevance of Baarhaspatyua Samhita has been raised several times before in this talk page and no answer is forthcoming. So I'll go ahead to remove the text for now; it can be readded if a suitably reliable source is found attesting the quote's authorship and dating. Abecedare 17:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a short note to say thanks to all for the recent changes to the article - it reads so much better now! Regards, Gouranga(UK) 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Further to the Baarhaspatyua Samhita, this is the text of the 'Vedic' quote from it -

Himalyam Samarabhya

Yavadindusarovaram

Tam Deonirmitam Desham

Hindusthanam Prachakshate

In spite of my lack of knowledge of Sanskrit, I'd say that the above has to be a modern work. Imc 21:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, in the judgement of the Supreme Court of India, cited in the article, the learned judge has correctly opined: "The people on the Indian side of the Sindhu were called Hindu by the Persian and the later Western invaders. That is the genesis of the word 'Hindu'. ... The term 'Hindu', according to Dr. Radhakrishnan, had a territorial ... significance. It implied residence in a well-defined geographical area. ... [One of the ] features of Hindu religion [recognized] by this Court [is] acceptance of the Vedas with reverence as the highest authority in religious and philosophical matters, and acceptance with reverence of Vedas by Hindu thinkers and philosophers as the sole foundation of Hindu philosophy." In another citation in the earlier version of the article, which now stands revised, Dr. Vishwanath Ayengar has said: "Any spiritual tradition that has originated on the Indian subcontinent is Indian. ... The word Hindu is not Indian; it is a word of Persian origin. ...All the [spiritual] traditions of India are inspired by the Vedas." Also, the reference to Bal Gangadhar Tilak, in the earlier version, regarding Hindu/Hinduism and the Vedas, was very authoritative. May I recommend that you reincorporate all this information in the article. Kanchanamala 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please site a reliable source for the quotation you just gave so it can be examined in more detail? Thanks. Buddhipriya 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Both the citations are there in the earlier version of the article which has since been revised by Abecedare.Kanchanamala 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Kanchanamala, here is the only reference made in the article's previous version (that is, before I edited the sections) to B.G. Tilak and Vish Ayengar:

"Since then, various definitions have been proposed by scholars like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Dr. Vishwanath Ayengar, who have defined Hinduism as a religion based on the Vedas 11, just as the Bible and the Qur'an are the basis of Christianity and Islam, respectively."

(no citation was given for B.G. Tilak.)

In the current version, the article cites an exact quote from Tilak, since that quote was considered to be a nice working formula by the Indian supreme court. The Dr Ayengar bit was indeed deleted since (1) the source was non-reliable (just a PDF on the web), (2) the speaker is non-notable (no disrespect intended) compared to the others currently quoted in the section [4], (3) I could not find other authors quoting Dr. Ayengar on this point (all the other quotes/references in the current version of the section have been independently cited by other authors; which demonstrates, for wikipedia purposes, that these sources are considered notable on the topic).

As for Dr. Radhakrishnan, he was not mentioned at all in the previous version, while his famous book is cited now. Can you point out which older version of the article you are referring to and also please clarify exactly what you wish to include and where ? Regards. Abecedare 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We have seen similar disruptive imprecision in sourcing in the discussion on the Ashvamedha article, e.g., Talk:Ashvamedha#Ashvamedha_in_the_Vedas. I cite that case because I myself was unclear on the sources and wasted time searching for something that could not be confirmed. At some point it is necessary to draw attention to patterns of behavior and ask that participation be more helpful. Buddhipriya 00:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, it shall be a pleasure to share suggestions with you as and when I have them. I shall be delighted to be of help to you in improving the article. For starters, in the statement "the number of gods to be worshipped is large", can we say 'deities' ["devataa"] instead of 'gods'? One God is worshipped in the form of as many deities.Kanchanamala 05:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question? No, we cannot !

If Tilak used the word "~~God~~ gods" we are not at liberty to change what he said - that would not only violate wikipedia's manual of style, but misquoting someone would be considered an egregious act of intellectual dishonesty. Note: I don't believe, nor am I implying, that that is your intention here; but I wish to emphasize how strict such strictures are. Abecedare 06:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction to my comment above: Tilak is quoted as writing "gods", so it would be improper to even capitalize the term into "God" as I did above. Abecedare 06:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, I have since noticed that the article has its limitations. This is 2007, and I try to help correct any inaccurate or imprecise description made in the past about the Hindus and their many ways of worhipping God. I shall keep making suggestions and you evaluate them.Kanchanamala 06:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, in the United States, the highest court of judicature is called and referred to as the U.S. Supreme Court. I doubt if the Supreme Court of India is ever referred to as Indian Supreme Court. Can we refer to that court as the Supreme Court of India?Kanchanamala 06:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Kanchanamala, you are right that the official name is "Supreme Court of India", but "Indian Supreme Court" is also a proper term of reference for the body. Here is a quote by the Indian Vice President K. Kant, "The record of the Indian Supreme Court and the superior judiciary is an ennobling saga of a deep awareness of the nuances of law as well as a profound appreciation of the contemporary reality."[5]; and the Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal himself, "One of the main objections to an independent right or rights to the environment lies in the difficulty of definition. It is in this regard that the Indian Supreme Court has made a significant contribution."[6] The added emphasis is mine, but you'll note that both documents are from the Supreme Court of India's official website!

Incidentally the official name of the U.S. Supreme Court is "Supreme Court of the United States" [7]. Cheers. Abecedare 06:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, the passage quoted from the judgement of the Supreme Court does not do justice to the subject. I think two more passages from the same judgement should be added.

"The people on the Indian side of the Sindhu were called Hindu by the Persian and the later Western invaders [The Hindu View of Life by Dr.Radhakrishnan, p.12]. That is the genesis of the word 'Hindu'. ... The term 'Hindu', according to Dr. Radhakrishnan, had a territorial ... significance. It implied residence in a well-defined geographical area."

The contents of the above paragraph, as also of the one quoted in the article, were opined by Justice Gajendragadkar as the chief justice of the Bombay High Court. Also, the judge, in the paragraph quoted in the article, was actually referring to "we find it difficult ... to define Hindu religion or even adequately describe it." He goes on to say, "Confronted by this difficulty, ... Dr. Radhakrishnan explained ..." The above paragraph is part of Dr. Radhakrishnan's explanation, followed by the observations of Justice Gajendragadkar. The following paragraph is the opinion of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.

"[One of the] features of Hindu religion recognized by this Court [is] aceptance of the Vedas with reverence as the highest authority in religious and philosophical matters and acceptance with reverence of Vedas by Hindu thinkers and philosophers as the sole foundation of Hindu philosophy."

Can we add the above quotations after the existing quotation?Kanchanamala 09:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the section is already too long and if anything it could be shortened by at least a sentence by tightening up the content which is already there. Buddhipriya 16:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, can we add the two quotations after the existing quotation?Kanchanamala 18:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Kanchanamala, you are right that the Supreme Court of India (SCI) judgment makes for interesting reading and any interested reader should look it up - that is the point of providing the reference and the link. However I am not certain that the additional quotes you cite add content 'that is not already there in the article. In particular:

Dr. Radhakrishnan's views on the genesis of the word are covered in the etymology section of the article in even greater detail than the quote itself. The 2nd paragraph of the "Who is a Hindu?" section even discusses scholarly opinion on when, why and who transformed the usage.
As for the the additional SCI quote, the same point about the importance of the vedas is already made twice in the section: in the Tilak quote as well as when the article says, "common central thread of philosophy (Vedic concepts ...)", which not only tells the reader that Vedas are "central", but also explains why they are (commonly) considered so. Also you clearly are aware that the feature of Hindu religion you cite is just one of several that the SCI judgment lists - so if we quote this one, we will perhaps have to list the others too for completeness. That is the reason I chose the Tilak quote instead, since it is cited as a useful "working formula" in the same ruling. Also we shouldn't let the SCI judgment be the only word on this complex subject - it should be and currently is balanced by views of other prominent scholars, academicians and thinkers who provide different perspectives and interpretations.

I agree with Buddhipriya, that if anything the section could use some shortening by tightening of prose. We should not lose focus by concentrating on one section, but keep in mind the article's (vast) subject: "Hindu".

Finally to answer the questions you asked on my talk Page: Here is the Chief Justice's speech link again (it is a Word document hosted on the Supreme Court's website) - the Indian and International media very commonly uses the "Indian Supreme Court" moniker as a simple google search should convince you. The reason I didn't cite that earlier is because one could potentially argue that all the media is wrong; but surely one would admit that the Chief Justice of India will not use incorrect terminology for the Supreme Court of India, especially in an official speech (as opposed to off-the-cuff extemporaneous remarks). Cheers. Abecedare 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, I was just asking for some information on your userpage about some usage. That's all. Why are you prejudiced against me? Earlier, on this page, I just asked to know if the Supreme Court of India was called and referred to as Indian Supreme Court, even as the highest court of judicature in the United States is called and referred to as the U.S. Supreme Court. I never said anything about the official name of the Supreme Court in India or in the States. You brought it up from nowhere. Why? It was simply irrelevant. I asked you to evaluate my suggestions. Is this how you choose to evaluate with prejudice? If that be so, you and your associates can have the articles on Hindu and Hinduism. I don't want to have anything to do with these two articles. I trusted that I would be working with you in good faith. But, it seems, I was wrong. Goodbye and good luck. And no "cheers" because I don't like sarcasm.Kanchanamala 04:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, I greatly appreciate your discreet response. Let's move on.Kanchanamala 04:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested changes to Who is a Hindu?

Abecedare, I suggest that the two quotations from the Indian Supreme Court ruling be suitably replaced. (1) The first quotation gives a wrong impression of Hinduism. (2) Tilak's quotation is an English translation of his Marathi original. I am not sure who wrote the translation in 1935. In Marathi, the word for Gods is 'deva' which now discerning scholars translate as deities. But as it is, the quotation unwittingly gives the wrong impression that Hinduism believes in more than one God, whereas the fact is that one God is worshipped in the form of numerous deities by those who believe in idol worship.

The Indian Supreme Court ruling referred to in the article is given by 3 judges in a judgement dated July 2, 1995 [the Judgement]. The Judgement refers to some observations made in an earlier case (AIR 1966 SC 1119) by Gajendragadkar who spoke for the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court [CJ].CJ is quoted in the Judgement as seeking an answer to the question, who are Hindus and what are the broad features of Hinduism. CJ faces a difficulty in doing so, which by the way is quoted in the article as if it was definitive. CJ then observes how Radhakrishnan and Monier-Williams deal with this difficulty. CJ then quotes a working formula (emphasis mine) evolved by Tilak [the working formula]. The Judgement then refers to another earlier case (1984 SCR 447). The Judgement then enumerates 7 features of Hinduism recognized by CJ "as coming within its broad sweep." It is sort of definitive for the Judgement. I suggest that the first quotation of CJ, and the working formula of Tilak, in the article, be replaced by the following 2 "features" which give a reasonably correct impression of Hinduism:

"Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters and acceptance with reverence of Vedas by Hindu thinkers and philosophers as the sole foundation of Hindu philosophy."

"Realization of the truth that Gods to be worshipped may be large, yet there being Hindus who do not believe in the worshipping of idols."

Thanks.Kanchanamala 07:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Kanchanamala, let me address the two issues individually:

I am sure why you think "first quotation gives a wrong impression of Hinduism" ? I think it clearly lays out the problem one faces in defining the term "Hindu" and hence prefaces the rest of the section, which documents several noteworthy attempts at defining the term. Can you please spell out your specific objection to the quote or its message ?
I have no particular objection to replacing the Tilak quote:

Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse; and the realization of the truth that the number of gods to be worshipped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of Hindu religion.

by the Supreme Court's language:

Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters and acceptance with reverence of Vedas by Hindu thinkers and philosophers as the sole foundation of Hindu philosophy. Realization of the truth that Gods to be worshipped may be large, yet there being Hindus who do not believe in the worshipping of idols.

However I do prefer the former quote mainly because it is more succinct and lists a greater number of features. For completeness I'll list all the feature enumerated by the SCI in my next comment.

Perhaps other editors can weigh in as to which of the above two quotes (i.e., Tilak or two features from the SCI ruling) they prefer ? Regards. Abecedare 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, for reference, are the "Features of Hindu religion recognized by this Court in Shastri Yaganapurushdasji (supra) as coming within its broad sweep" [8]:

Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters and acceptance with reverence of Vedas by Hindu thinkers and philosophers as the sole foundation of Hindu philosophy.
Spirit of tolerance and willingness to understand and appreciate the opponent's point of view based on the realization that truth was many-sided.
Acceptance of great world rhythm, vast period of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession, by all six systems of Hindu philosophy.
Acceptance by all systems of Hindu philosophy the belief in rebirth and pre-existence.
Recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are many.
Realization of the truth that Gods to be worshipped may be large, yet there being Hindus who do not believe in the worshipping of idols.
Unlike other religions or religious creeds Hindu religion not being tied-down to any definite set of philosophic concepts, as such.

I'll emphasize that I do not propose, or support, listing all these features in the article verbatim. The reason being that, while the SCI has the last word on how a Hindu is legally defined in India and what religious movements are legally considered to be its offshoots, it is only one opinion (albeit important and relatively neutral) among many as far as scholarship goes. Therefore we should avoid giving it undue weight in the general Hindu article. Abecedare 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article is fine as it is. If there is objection to the Tilak quote, the alternate from the Supreme Court is OK, but I think the Tilak quote reads better. If the issue is about monotheism versus "devas", the notion that all the various devas are just one manifestion of a single deity is a rather late development in the history of Hinduism. Buddhipriya 23:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, I hope when you said, "I think that the article is fine as it is" you meant the sections under discussion. IMHO, much of the remaining article needs a major overhaul :-) Abecedare 19:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the part related to the definition and the quote. :) Buddhipriya 02:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, (1) The first quotation is all negative observations, and the conclusion is totally inaccurate. (2) Tilak, a math professor, was not regarded as a philosopher. His "Gita-rahasya" was just mentioned in Radhakrishnan's book on Gita. Moreover, the quote recommended by me from the Judgement is least likely to make the reader think that Hindus worship more than one God, because the quote also makes a reference to idols. It is not the best, but it will serve the article in a much better way. That's my submission. Thanks.Kanchanamala 07:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Kanachanamala, let me try to address your individual points in order to be thorough (not nit-picky):

"The first quotation is all negative observations": That is true, but I don't see why that is an objection. See neti neti for an example, where negation is used to describe Brahman itself.
"the conclusion is totally inaccurate.": That is one point of view, not an established fact. The section itself describes scholarly opinions both in support and opposition to the claims that Hinduism is a religion/way-of-life.
"Tilak, a math professor, was not regarded as a philosopher.": Again I agree. The reason his quote is included is not because Tilak is portrayed as the foremost scholar on the subject, but because his this particular formulation of who is a Hindu is noteworthy as attested by the SCI citation.
"make the reader think that Hindus worship more than one God": Well, some Hindus do worship more than one God; other Hindus choose to worship one (or more) particular manifestation of God; while others reject all manifestations/idol-worship altogether. That is even the point of both the quotes.

That said, I again stress that though I prefer the Tilak quote myself, I have no particular objection if a consensus emerges that that the SCI quote is better suited for the article. I guess we will just have to wait for more editors to weigh in. Regards. Abecedare 19:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare:

(1) Regarding the first quotation, 'neti neti' is used by Shankara whenever the concept of 'brahman' is found to be indescribable. Unlike 'brahman', Hinduism is fully describable in many a ways. Let us say what Hinduism is all about, and not what it is not. I hope you will agree with me that the article here is meant to be informative, and not a study in comparative philosophy or religion.

(2) Hinduism, among other things, is also a way of life. It is much more than just that. Does any scholar disagree with this viewpoint? If not, we should find the conclusion in the first quotation totally inaccurate.

(3) I am sorry I should not have commented on Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak. I have the greatest respect for him. He has been one of my role models. It was totally unbecoming on my part to comment on him. I regret it.

(4) I did not realize that Tilak's quotation in the current version of the article is different from what there was in an earlier version I had read. I shall request some time to think about it.

Thanks.Kanchanamala 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Tilak's quotation in the current version is too assertive, and unnecessarily so, when it concludes, "that indeed is the [emphasis mine] distinguishing feature of Hindu religion." The second "feature" from the Judgement recommended above may still be considered to replace the existing quotation, also for the reasons already given above. Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New section header

Hello :) Can anyone think of a new section header for the header ==Who is a Hindu?==. It really sounds like its an advert for something there; I dont know much about this and I would be bold and do it but I cant think of a suitable one, any suggestions? The Sunshine Man 12:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quite controversial

While Hinduism itself rests on the belief in the bramhand, there are quite a few lines here which accept atheism as part of Hinduism, which is probably a current day extension of the Sanatana Dharma.

On top of this, the edits to the section of including atheism in Hinduism are being labeled vandalism by Wiki principles.

This needs to be looked into.

It would be nice if comments are signed. Anyway, if the modern term Hindu is accepted as a comprehensive term, then Hinduism will be a comprehensive term, and will include atheism as and if practiced in India. Thanks.Kanchanamala 23:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking name of similar religion

Can anyone assist? I am seeking the name of a religion that began in India. Its name translates to "The Path", in English. Members of the religion believe that God incarnates as one person at a time, as a leader of others. They believe that when the person dies, God reincarnates as someone else. The religion has split somewhat over the years because people disagree over who is the new incarnation. Joie de Vivre ^T 01:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Joie, if you can give some more information, I shall try to identify the particular Hindu tradition. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

gods

[edit] Islamic Pakistan & Hindu

I am very curious. What has WikiProject Pakistan got to do with the article on Hindu? Are they somehow trying to butt in and be a nuisance or something more? I request my fellow editors to weigh in. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "Hindu". Pakistan can justify claiming that "History of Hinduism" is related because Hindus used to live in the modern region of Pakistan. But saying a WP:PAK tag is acceptable here would mean every country from the subcontinent can add their tag here, Nepal (which I do believe is justified) Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan ... just because a large number of Hindus lived there in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaGizza (talk • contribs)

By the way, who are you? The question is, is WikiProject Pakistan acting properly in appending its tag to an article which has already been tagged since its inception? Thanks.Kanchanamala 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it was me. Forgot to sign. I believe any project can add a tag to an article that is already tagged generally speaking. For example, History of Hinduism can be tagged by both WikiProject History and WikiProject Hinduism. It falls under both groups. So if there is a strong connection between "Hindu" and Pakistan, there is no reason why they can't add their tag later on. Gizza^Discuss ^© 06:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gizza, I appreciate your educating me. WikiProject Pakistan are more than welcome. Thanks.Kanchanamala 03:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

How the word hindu was derived Madhuram Subbarao B.A.(Hons),M.A.,M.Sc. Temple Street, SK Degree college area Ayyannapeta Jn, Vizianagaram 535003 India.

Great men of India have defined the word Hindu as per use it is put to in different contexts. I am placing before you the meaning of Hindu as per the science of sounds created by the cosmos. For example Amma, Mom ; Three, These have been used all over the world. Hindu is a mixture of two sounds: HO+INDU A} Ho is the sound of the sea which became common in chanting manthras. Om is also a derivative of this. When foreigners observed Indians worshipping God. They found the sound Ho commonly. Ho became a name for God and is heard in China and Vietnam. B} Indu. This is derived from the colour blue of the sky. Rama and Krishna are described as having the blue colour of the sky. So Hindu means god of the skies. The origin and proliferation of Hinduism is based on Cosmic Knowledge which as a science for users became astrology. Staralogy must be the name of cosmic science if it is based on stars. In English Science means knowledge. The word used in India is Sastra which is Sa +Astra. Good weapon. Cosmos creates evil as commonly as it creates good. It created the cow as well as the Chita. So you must develop knowledge which kills chita. So Knowledge to the welfare of man is called Sastra. So sciences which are detrimental to man were destroyed. Astrology as commercial value for predicting and it gets developed commercially. Foundation books of Astrology have an opening caution not to commit yourself to dates. Astrology is a guide to rulers to know the current situation and the past to devise a plan for now and the future The word Hindu means the god of heavens which we in India worship. How Sweet, how important was India When Muslims blockaded the land route to India Europeans searched a sea route. First Mistake: They mistook the islands on way to India and called them east indies Second Mistake: On way to India via West they saw the islands with coconuts and called them WEST INDIES Third Mistake: They tried East again beyong East Indies and saw a long land mass and called it India and Asia and it became Indonesia Fourth Mistake: They tried west again landed in America and called the people Red Indians. Right to India the fifth time. North was ice caps, south was Africa so they took a round and came to cape town where, where the Negroes pointed to the North East and said that is India. They came to Calicut. What is great about India today. Ever since India became free it diplomats preach peace and prevent a global war. Hitler aggrandized himself. Indian culture considers humility as a character of Great Indians. European History elevated aggrandizement as Ceaser the Great, Alexander the great. India called Gandhi a mahatma as he won freedom with two weapons. If you are abused, do not abuse convince them. If you are hit, do not hit back, generate mercy in them. Prophets of the order of Gandhi were killed in Middle East. Worshipped long after their death . Gandhi’s greatness was recognized ever since he entered the field as his means are good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.116.99 (talk) 05:36, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Subbarao, the derivation of the word Hindu from [the Persian pronunciation of] the Sanskrit word 'sindhu' is well-established. Thanks.Kanchanamala 08:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu

Hindu as per the constitution of India: Hindu is one who is not a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Jain, Buddhist. This includes, rationalist too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.162.55 (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, can you help find out if the above claim is true? Thanks.Kanchanamala 05:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent addition

I removed an essay that was added to the article[9]. Guettarda 05:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest Religion

I deleted the exceedingly simplistic final line of the introduction. It stated (with a reference to an "About.com" piece seemingly written for third graders):

"Hinduism is believed to be the oldest living religious tradition in the world."

Sure. "It is believed" by someone somewhere just about anything but when speaking about something as amorphous as Hinduism, and with few historical records for backup, such a statement in such a prominent position seems unconscionable.

mnuez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.180.16 (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC) h

Hinduism is believed to be the oldest living religious tradition in the world. means that it is believed to be so by and large. I am therefore restoring the observation in the article. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's really laughable scholarship Kanchanamala! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.190.20 (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bhagavat Gita as focus for all Hindu practicioners

I've paraphrased the statement but this denies an identity for Hindus who do not follow Vaishnavism even the Smartas might yes read the Gita but it isn't technically part of the Vedas (four Vedas and Upanishads),think about the vedas then the itihasas and puranas and also differences for Shaivas and Shaktas..namasteDomsta333 (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

As explained here the following was deleted in the article by Hornplease (talk · contribs) long time ago. Could the reason please be explained on the talkpage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu&diff=prev&oldid=125983129

Elst, Koenraad: Who is a Hindu? (2001) [10] ISBN 81-85990-74-3
Frawley, David: How I became a Hindu - My discovery of Vedic Dharma [11]
Goel, Sita Ram: How I Became a Hindu (1982, enlarged 1993) ISBN 81-85990-05-0

[12] -: Hindu and Hinduism, Manipulation of Meanings. Voice of India, Delhi 1993. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu&diff=prev&oldid=125983269 The Unity of India Dileep Karanth's article about the terms "Hindu" and "India" ABOUT THE NAME “HINDU” By Stephen Knapp

Meaning of the word Hindu

I think that the books by Frawley and Goel are not the best for the bibliography, because they are personal accounts. The book by Elst is notable here, because the book is precisely about the definition of Hindu. Just becaus the author is pro Hindu, is no reason to delete it. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whoa 1.9 X 10**9 ?

Islam does not claim to have more than that so if it were accurate it would be second not third. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

that was just vandalism. it's 0.9, not 1.9. dab (𒁳) 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New section

A new section highlighting expansion of the term hindu to sometimes include and expand to the population of Europe and America. Its a notable phenomena and is worth mentioning in NPOV style. Wikidās ॐ 18:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request Lock

Can someone request a lock? The vandalism on this page is ridiculous. 76.24.87.115 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance for this Project's importance scale.