Talk:Hindu/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please discuss the Dispute. Same points are repeated but people remove tag without discussion. It is request to All Wikipedia Administrator to see the concerns. Wikipedia is a very important Information Resource but if people are writing wrong and baseless information then there is a need to debate and discuss the issues. We should correct the article if there is anything mischievous or wrong.User:Socialworker

The notions of casteism and untouchability are creations of zealots who envisaged that these ideas will help them pursue their materialistic goals using Hindu religion as a tool. Hinduism never promoted casteism. It is quite ironical that the person who disputed the neutrality of the article himself presents an anti-Hindu propaganda. I strongly recommend that the person who commented on this article should do his homework before attacking any religion.

Don't feed trolls!!!. The person (User:Socialworker) who is attacking Hinduism is a troll. Do not respond to his comments or posts. Rohitbd 15:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC Please discuss the dispute. It is now wikipedia administrators who should solve the dispute. On If anybody is branding me as troll is certainly not acceptable. Till date I haven't done anything wrong with the article but the Hindu Shudra Rohitbd and Hindu Shudra Deepak are reverting the Dispute Tag. User:Socialworker

Hello, how can you say I am attacking Hinduism? I had a dispute regarding the wrong and mischievous information given in the article Hindu. The articles written on wikipedia are a great source of information to the world community. So I am clarifying the issues. It is you Brahmin-Shudra people who have branded me as anti-Hindu without reason. For most of the things I’ve given detail reference of Brahmin-Shudra religious books as well as present religious and social practices. I can even give you more proofs if you dare to debate. You are running away from the discussion because you can’t face the TRUTH. But that is not my demand that you accept the TRUTH or change your religion. You can follow whatever is your religion but don’t write wrong and mischievous information on ‘wikipedia’. Below in Dispute I've clearly given the points where I've seen lots of problem. wikipedia administrators please give attention User:Socialworker

Contents 1 Dispute 2 NPOV 3 Don't remove NPOV without discussion 4 Redirect replaced with weird stuff 5 Colour of Hindus 6 POV 7 sikhs and jains 8 beef and balinese 9 Brahmin definition of Hinduism 10 Two articles? 11 The Future of This Article 12 DELETIONS 13 Religion for the Common Hindu 14 Merger 15 "knowing English" 16 PLEASE ! 17 A Call To Arms 18 Nath Sampradaya 19 Jain, Buddhist and Sikhs are NOT Hindus 20 Untouchables i.e. Dalits are NOT Hindus 21 Regarding the caste system & treatment of Dalits. 22 Notice to WikiHindus. 23 The eating of meat

Dispute

Socailworker Please read below points about dispute.

1. Jain, Buddhist and Sikhs are NOT Hindus. There is lot of confusion among so-called Hindus i.e. Brahmin-Shudra people about How to define a person as Hindu? . Even if these people give some definition and we tell them many people OR many religions do not fit in their given definitions these people show their Hippocratic mind-set and are not ready exclude others from their confused definition of Hindu. Brahmins and Shudras are Phallus Worshipper for proof you can see the available information on wikipedia i.e. Lingam. We don’t have any objection about Brahmins religious practices. They can worship phallus along with their mothers and sisters because it is holy and religious thing for them. Everybody has right to practice his religion as per his tradition. So our views or our stand is certainly not anti-Hindu. But it is really insulting to include Jain, Buddhist and Sikhs in Hinduism because these are not phallus worshipers. Buddhist does not believe any God. So please remove all references about Jain, Buddhist and Sikh as Hindus from all wikipedia articles.

True; Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs would not like to be called Hindus. Though I may point out that in many hindu families, one of the son's is ordained a sikh. Such families will defy clear-cut demarcation. Similarly, many Hindus consider Buddha as the ninth avatar of Vishnu. You cannot stop them from believing in this way. Also, that many families have the surname Jain but follow Hindu religion. They are reconverts from the Jain community from a time when these religions had not separated. The only way to describe a Hindu is by the person's own description. There is no bar on a person's personal beliefs, including his/her right to an atheistic view. Your coining a new word 'Brahmin-Shudra' in place of 'Hindu' is your own distorted view (BTW, do you have a squint?). The reference to mothers and sisters and phalluses shows your upbringing and the effect of your religious education. It does not merit a reply. The Arbitration committee should note it and discard your messages for being hate messages. Aupmanyav 07:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

2. The SC/ST i.e. Scheduled Castes (i.e. Dalits) and Scheduled Tribes (i.e. Adivasis) have approx. 240 million population in India as per 2001 government census. Untouchables (i.e. Dalits OR Out-Caste people, AVARNA People) and Adivasis (Aboriginal people of India) are certainly NOT Hindus. The untouchables are treated worst than animals by the Caste Brahmins (Approx. 40 million population) and their religious slaves Caste Shudras (i.e. majority populaion more than 500 million. Even in 21st century the Caste Shudras think that they are Kshatriya i.e. warriors practically they are very poor people who hardly manage to get their livelihood and daily bread butter. If you ask them what do you think about Indian Military? They are confused. Practically only Indian Military is warrior at present stage and the caste system is decided by birth. Brahmin created Religious books such as Veda and DharmaSutras (e.g Manusmriti etc.) are the basics behind origin of Varna and Caste System.

Excuse me? Where is it written that adivasis & dalits are untouchables and not Hindu? Where is it written that a Hindu means belonging to a caste? What about those before Manu's time? Were they not Hindus? Why are you blaming Hinduism itself? I get a feeling that it is you who thinks that these groups must be kept out of the fold of Hinduism. Rohitbd 10:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In the Indian Census 2001, people were asked to indicate the name of their religion (http://www.censusindia.net/census2001/qpopenu.html), the final data is according to their replies. Would you give reasons to doubt the Census of India data and, state which data should be accepted in its place. Indian Census has been held uninterruptedly since 1872 and the 2001 Census was 14th in the series. Indian Census Commission, like the Indian Election Commission, is an empowered body, and is well qualified and experienced for its work. The Indian Constitution and the representatives of the Indian people elected by universal enfranchise in regularly held elections which are admired all over the world, are there to stop any injustice to SC/ST/Tribals or to provide them necessary help when they require it. The Indian Government has since 1952 a strong affirmative action program. In today's India birth in any particular caste does not entitle any one to special rights or take way any right from them (except in case of the SC/ST and other backward or economically weaker sections of the society when they are granted by the constitution). However, we appreciate your concern even if we do not understand the particular reason for your demented outbursts. Aupmanyav 08:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

3. About my homework before discussing about Hinduism anybody can be pretty clear by the given details and references given by me. Please read Brahmnical Holy Books Rig-Veda, DharmaSutras (i.e. Religious Laws) etc. I) RigVeda- Book/Chapter Number 10. Paragraph Number: 90 and Verses 11 and 12 gives the origin of Brahmin-Shudra Varna System. II) BhagVadGeeta Chaper Number 4 verse Number 13 tells about ChaurVarna i.e. social division. And the religious law books such as Manusmriti,Gautam DharmaSutra, ApastamBha DharmaSutra gives details about the Laws implemented in practical Hindu Life. And How Human beings are treated worst than animanls.

Bhagavad Gita also mentions that a person's caste is determined not only by janma but also by karma - i.e., in later life it is the karma or actions of a person that determine his/her caste. Rohitbd 10:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What Geeta says cannot be faulted. It says '.. Janmat Vernah ..' (God gives special propensities to each person at birth, some person may be good for studies, like Homi Bhabha or A.P.J.Abdul Kalam; some person will excell in war or games, like Tendulkar or Sam Manekshaw; some person might be good at making money, like Dhirubhai Ambani or Azim Premji; most other people would take up jobs in laboratories, army, businesses, or till land, generally helping the people in the above three categories, these would be Shudras. Shudras did not have the shame label that christian missionaries or envy-devoured muslims have tagged to them. A barber has his own specialized job to do, and so has a washerman, society needs both of them). Aupmanyav 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Varna System which is practically divided in thousands of Caste Sub-Castes with tremendous hate in mind about each and other. Caste riots in India is a great roof about Brahmin created dangerous society. I) Brahmin (a person who is by birth called as priest approx. 40 million populaion) II) Kshatriya (warriors e.g. Indian Militory) III) Vaishya (Businesss People . So any person who is not working in ohers Farms or Companies are but doing any kind of Business are Vaishyas) IV) Shudra (Very large population 500 approx. million, but people always ignore discussion about these people. Any person who is working in others firms is Shudra. So practically if a Caste Brahmin or Caste Bania is working in someone else’s firm then those are also Shudras today. But practically Hindu people believe in by birth Caste System. Interesting thing is that the person Mr. Deepak Gupata who has asked in his comments for Homework himself is a Shudra Hindu. But he might be having any by birth Caste such as Bhangi,Bania Or Brahmin. I realy don’t know and don’t want to know. For me he is a Shudra Varna person as per the Holy Books RigVeda and all their DharmaShastras.

I get a strong feeling that you being extremely casteist! Rohitbd 10:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am Brahmin by caste. I worked with the U.S.Educational Foundation helping Indian students go to U.S. for higher studies. I was technically a Shudra, not involved in research, not involved in warring, not making money like L.N.Mittal. So what is wrong in that? A Shudra can live a sane, satisfied, a life useful to the society. Many whom I helped to go to U.S. are professors there or employed in good organizations. If you do not know and also do not want to know, then why are you here on these pages? Only to blame Hindus? The Arbitration Committee should note that you are not interested in serious debate. Aupmanyav 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

5. All above people who are in 4 varnas called as SaVarna i.e. people with some Varna. A Shudra may think that his forefathers were Kshatriya but today they are labors only JJ i.e. Shudra. Now those people who do not fall in above 4 categories are called as AVARNA i.e. do not have any Varna. Untochables are Avarna and these people do no accept ang Hindu Holy Book as their book neither they believe that Veda are holy. Population of Avarna i.e. Out Caste people (SC/ST) is around 240 million. There is no point in inclusion of these people in Hindu fold. How do call that population of Hindus is 950 million?? Practcally it is not even 600 million is you tally above information and the census of all religions and particularly AVARNA i.e Untouchables. The information given ae there are 950 million Hindus is absolute wrong and baseless.

AVARNA is not untouchable. Again it seems to be your interpretation and is wrong! Rohitbd 10:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not necessary to have mastered the scriptures. We get the knowledge about our religion from our elders, from the society. In case a person does not accept the scriptures or does not want to be known as a Hindu, there is no bar on his stating that or accepting another faith. The Indian Constitution guarantees religious freedom. Caste does not matter as far as Government of India goes (except for granting special privileges to people who are accepted according to the constitution to need help) or in private industry where the guiding priciple is the utility of the person to generate money for the company. There are many inter-caste or even inter-religious marriages, where if the families create trouble for the couple, they can get succor from law. The problem is that you seem to belong to some country which still is in medival age. You are not aware of how Indian society has changed or you do not want to acknowledge that for some personal reasons. There are no out-caste people (Avarnas) in India today. Every one belongs to some caste or some tribe, unless a person consciously chooses to do away with the caste label. That also is perfectly all right in today's India. If somebody decides not to accept food or water from another person, it is his personal choice and may be for reasons of hygene. How can a personal choice be objected to? The internet does not ban porn for just the same reason, personal choice. Aupmanyav 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

6. You can not call India as Hindustan because the official and legal name is India and Bharat certainly not Hindustan. Even today in 21st century the situation of Untouchables in worst than animanls. Untouchability created and maintained by Hindus is a worst than slavery. I am not anti-Hindu because stating facts does it make anti-Hindu? It is their religion and Castiem and Untochability is the problem of so-called Hindus i.e Brahmins and Shudras. Our dispute is that don’t include Jain, Buddhist and Sikhs in Hinduism. Untouchables are also not Hindus.

India is known as 'Hindustan' by long usage. Military bands play the tune of Iqbal's song 'Sare jahan se achcha Hindosataan Hamara'. Many Government of India undertakings are named with that. If you are an Indian citizen and want this to be changed, you can contact the member of Parliament in your area, tell him of your objections and ask him to take the case to the Parliament. If a constitutional amendment is desired then you would need the support of 75% votes in the Parliament. Constitution of India has been amended more than a 100 times on public desire. If you are not an Indian citizen, then you have no locus standii in the matter. If our untouchables have problems, we will take care of them and Government of India has always been taking very pro-active steps in this matter. Which society does not have its problems and which society is able to solve it in one day. Look at Pakistan. What kind of treatment the religious minorities get? Even those who profess Islam, like the Shias and Ahmadiyyas are killed regularly, their mosques are bombed. No use talking about treatment given to Christians and Hindus. What kind of treatment the regions get? What is happening in Baluchistan, in Pakhtoonistan, and in Northern Areas? What happened in Bangladesh? I am not anti-muslim, I am only stating the facts. As I mentioned earlier, the Census figures depend on the answers given by the respondents. Those who declare themselves as Jain, Buddhist or Sikhs are counted as such. Same goes for any caste among the Hindus. To accuse the Census of India of dishonesty is unfair and without proof. Again, if you are an Indian, I would suggest that you take the case to the appropriate authority or even the Supreme Court through a Public Interest litigation (PIL). If you are not an Indian, don't poke your nose in our affairs. Aupmanyav 15:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

7. Don’t call India as Hindustan. You can’t change name of any nation. If you talk about popular names given to India then read Buddhist texts available all over world then India is known as Nag-Lok Or Jambudvipa. But these are only popular names legally anybody can’t change the name of a country. So write either INDIA OR BHARAT only NOT Hindustan. This is insulting term for many Indian. In Persian language the meaning of word ‘Hindu’ is ‘Slave’. Today the Indians are a democratic and independent country.

I have answered about 'Hindustan' in the earlier point. How the Buddhist name us in their texts is upto them. Serpents are revered in India and many other cultures. The scientific reason is that they rid the agricultural fields of mice. The serpent plays an important role in our mythology as a servant to Lord Vishnu or as an adornment of Lord Shiva. Even when Buddha was born in a parkland, the story goes that a serpent acted as an umbrella for him and his mother. Hindu scriptures do not mention India as Naga-Loka. In our scriptures, Jambudvipa is the name of the continent in which India is situated. Jambudvipa would include many countries other than India like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and perhaps Afghanistan. I do not know which other countries could be situated in the so-visualised Jambudvipa. As I already wrote, an Indian not liking the term 'Hindustan' is free to fight his/her case in appropriate forums. What Persians mean by the word 'Hindu' is their lookout. We do not care about that. If they are cultured (which I think they are) they would not demean another people in this way. Such things are done only by uncultured people, of whom you are setting an example. Aupmanyav 15:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

8. Don’t call a ‘Native Of India’ is Hindu! There are millions who are not Hindus. Above discussion is a proof. Or anybody can study the references and explanations given above. Finally decisions are taken by wikipedia!

India = Hindusthan. You have a problem with Hindus isn't it? Rohitbd 10:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A native of India could be a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Parsi, a Jew, a Jain, a Buddhist, a Sikh, a Bahai. I do not think there is any religion that is not represented in India. Non-Hindus make 20% of India's population. So what is new in this? Of course, in case of a dispute, the Arbitration Committee decides the issues. Aupmanyav 15:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

9. Population of so-called Hindus is certainly not 950 million on what basis such rubbish information is given?

The Census of India does not count the number of Hindus all over the world. Hindus are not particularly interested in a countout. What purpose will it serve? We are not that egoistic, our religion teaches us otherwise. www.adherents.com is not a hindu organization, it gives the number of Hindus as 900 million. That is quite satisfactory for us. We do not go after proselytization like Christians or Muslims. Aupmanyav 15:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

10. The aricle Hindu is full of wrong and mischieveous information so eiher correct it or delete the article but please don’t play with other religions and the feelings of other religion people. Socialworker: my 10 points might be helpful for the dispute

You have not mentioned any particular fact in your item No. 10. It is a general statement. I do not think, it requires any rejoinder. Aupmanyav 15:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

How is anybody a Hindu? Who is a Hindu? The person who believes in Jesus Christ and the Bible is a Christian, Who believes in Allah as God is a Muslim. Who is Hindu? "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 worshiped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of the Hindu religion. "

"SocialWorker : This is certainly not the definition of Hindu! Non-Brahmins are not allowed to read Veda and DharmaShastras. Even today 97% percent so-called Hindus and branded as Shudras [ e.g. Castes like Maratha, Kunbi, Koshti, Agri, OBC's i.e. Other Backward Castes etc.] ; haven't read or even seen Veda and DharmaShastra Please read "Riddles In Hinduism" written by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. Obviously there are 'Religios Slaves' of caste Brahmins. Hindu might be another name given to "Shudras" by Caste Brahmins but certainly Jain, Buddhists and Sikhs are not Hindus because these people do not accept Supremacy Of Brahmin created Vedas and DharmaShastras. In fact in India Brahmnism and Buddhism are opposite to each other and rival philosophies "

Sikh, Jain and Buddhist are separate Religious Philosopies.

The thoughts as below are with ignorance,

Hardly anybody seems to sign their message. This way, you cannot tell where the message started or where it ends. Users should remember to do this. Now to Social Worker's question: Who is a hindu? Not All people agree to one definition. Supreme court has opined on it, but in the latest case in Kerala, the judge failed to give a judgement. For example, I am an atheist, I do not believe in any divine origin of either the Vedas or Geeta, I do not believe in Karma or rebirth, neither do I believe in heaven or hell; but I am a staunch Hindu. Perhaps the best explanation would be a person who describes himself as a Hindu. He may be and Indian or from any other people. Non-brahmins are free to study any book they would like to and nobody can stop them. The books are avaialble freely or might be available on internet. Shudras do not make 97% of all hindus. This is factually wrong and I do not know why wikipedia should consider such malicious statements. It only wastes valuable time for the wikipedians to include correct information and would also waste the time of Arbitration committee. If anybody has not read Vedas or Dharma Shastras, it is their own wish. How can you force anybody to read a book against his/her wishes. We are not muslims where reading of Qur'an is essential. You should have read at least some of these books to make a knowledgeable objection. Dr. Ambedkar has his own interests, I do not say that they were malafied, and not all hindus would agree to it. His views after converting to Buddhism would be irrelevant and biased to this article. The ST/SC/Backward and Economically Weaker Sections of the society rule India today, thanks to a democratic system (you yourself said that they constitute 97% of the Hindu society). They are nobody's slaves. Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs do not need to accept supremacy of Brahmins, actually Brahmins need to accept the supremacy of muslims because Indian President is one, of the Sikhs because the Prime Minister is one, and of Christians because the Chairperson of the largest party in the ruling coalition is one. Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism is a rival to the other, we are not Christians and Muslims fighting for supremacy for nearly 1,000 years. We respect each other, and many of our beliefs are common. Aupmanyav 15:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if we accept that a Hindu Community exists those who are controlled by caste Brahmins and follow traditions defined by Caste Brahmins are Hindus. The so called Hindus should not hide the real truths of there culture. Nepal which is officially declared Hindu State where more than 22% are untouchables even in 21st century. There are social problems in all faiths.

The Indian constitution accepts 23% of people as SC/ST and a further 50-60% (a decision of the state where they live) of people as Backward Classes or Economically Weaker Sections of the society. These people have been given special concessions. Nobody is hiding the fact. Brahmins were given the responsibility by the Hindu society to comment on religious matters because they studied scriptures. This like like the Amils deciding on matters of religions, or the christian priests explaining the way scriptures should be understood. What is wrong in that? Aupmanyav 09:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Early Hindu(ism)
Three basic principles rule the orthodox schools of Hinduism: 1. Belief in an eternal, infinite, all-embracing neuter principle of ultimate reality called Brahman. The pervasive force lying within all beings, Brahman is conceived as the "self," or atman, of all forms of life. 2. Supremacy of the sacred texts like the Vedas (probably composed about 1500-1200 BC)and Upanishads (c. 400 BC). 3. Supremacy of the Brahman (priestly) class as the highest representative of religious purity and knowledge, and many support the notion that social and religious duties are differently determined according to birth and inherent ability. Various schools of Hinduism were developing during the time of the Buddha, like Mimamsa, Vedanta and Samkhya (see below).

Sikh, Jain and Buddhists are "NOT Hindus". If you go and ask any Hindu a simple question Who is Hindu? He may not answer you correctly. Such things can be answered as above.

Jain Mahavira (Great Hero) lived around 570-490 BC and was a contemporary of the Buddha. He is considered the main prophet (Tirthankara) who founded Jainism in this era. Similar to Buddhism, Jainism teaches that their principles have been taught in the past by enlightened teachers, and will be taught again in the future.

Reader can decide which one is first..

The Hindus have a Caste system. Kshatriya, Brahmin and Sudra.
--Sree

SocialWorker: "This is absolute wrong and Hippocratic answer. There is thousands of Caste and Sub-Castes and 240 million people are Out-Castes. Those are treated worst than animals. Untouchability is worst than Slavery There is a social division called as Varna Created by Veda and DharmaShastra then this division has given birth to Graded Inequality and now there are thousands of caste sub castes. Everyday there are Caste Wars and many people are killed. So Brahmnical caste system is not a simple subject. You can NOT call Jains OR Buddhists as Hindus. It is a big Insult to call them as part of Bhangi-Brahmin Casteiest Vedic peoples so called Hinduism

That is true, there are thousands of Castes and sub-Castes among the Hindus. Again their treatment is a problem which the the Government of India and Hindus society will deal with. There are no out-castes, that idea is no more valid. There are people who by choice have abandoned the use of Caste names. There are tribal people who may be hindu or may profess any other religion. I do not think you know the difference between Caste and Varna. Caste is a way by the people to safeguard their particular identity, tradition, and culture. Varna is connected with the propensities given by God to a person at the time of birth. Yes, there are caste wars, all people have their own interests, it could be political power, or economic gain. As you rightly mention the caste system is not a simple subject and dunes will find it difficult to understand. We do not call Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs as Hindus, who tells you that we do? They are ennumerated separately. You have mentioned the word Bhangi, the anonimity of internet gives you safety to continue your rent, but please know that this is an cognizable offense in India and people could take you to court and get you convicted for five years in jail, the lawful word here is Jamadar or Safai Karmachari (Safai Worker). Aupmanyav 17:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove NPOV without discussion

How Mr. Gupta says the NPOV issue is "baseless" I am having a very healthy discussion Mr. gupta or anybody should debate before removing the NPOV.

There are 2 problems in given article

1. The definition of Hindu itself is wrong. It says "Without doing any of these, a person was a common native, citizen of the land, a Hindu. Who is living in Hindustan he is Hindu." There is a Nation known as India OR Bharat. Where is Hindustan? Then who are people born and brought up in USA, UK?? How do you call them also as Hindu?

2. Calling all Indians as Hindus is an insult to many Indians specially Jain, Buddhist and Sikhs, Adivasis (Aboriginal People of India) and Untouchables (Dalits) i.e. Approx. total population 400 million people in India because Caste Brahmins and Caste Shudras i.e. so-called Hindus are degraded people and Phallus Worshippers i.e. God Shiva Lingam. Let the so-called Hindus be as Phallus Worshipper we don't have objection about their religion and religious beliefs but don’t insult Jain, Buddhist and Sikhs!

Wikipedia Administrator: Because of above reasons first remove the reference of Jain, Buddhist and Sikhs as Hindus from the current article and all Hinduism Or Brahmanism related article. Second ask the so-called Hindus to correct the definition of Hindu! wikipedia is a great encyclopedia please don't make it full of wrong things or wrong information! The information on wikipedia is valuable and referred by the world. The Caste Brahmins and Caste Shudras are degraded people for them this encyclopedia might be another place to portray degraded religion as great religion. Let them do it but don’t insult others. Don't call all Indians as Hindus!

SocialWorker

I do not see the quoted definition of 'Hindu' in the article. Perhaps it has been since changed. The Constitution of India describes a Hindu in the following words:

Article 25 (2)(b) of the Constitution stipulates that “the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion”.1 The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 goes in greater detail to define this “legal Hindu”, by stipulating in Section 2 that the Act applies:

“(a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms and developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,

“(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion, and

“(c) to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion”.2

You might find the following lines useful for clarification of the status:

This definition of the “legal Hindu”, though explicitly not equating him with the “Hindu by religion”, is exactly coterminous with the original Islamic use of the term Hindu: all Indian Pagans are legally Hindus. The Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are explicitly included in the “Hindus by law” but separated from the “Hindus by religion”: at this point, the law follows the usage established by Western scholars, contrary to the original usage.

Note that the changes in Hindu Law imposed by an Act of Parliament (on top of the very existence of separate Hindu and Muslim Law regimes) constitute a further measure of communal inequality. The secular government would not dare to touch the other religion-based law systems, as has repeatedly been shown in the past decades regarding items of Christian and Muslim Personal Law. An interference in Hindu Law by a national legislative body only makes sense in an avowedly Hindu state; in a sense, therefore, the Hindu Marriage Act constitutes an admission by Jawaharlal Nehru that ultimately India is a Hindu state.

(http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/wiah/ch3.htm)

So you cannot remove Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs being 'Hindus in law' in the Indian Constitution unless the Constitution is amended, though they may not be 'Hindus by religion'. If the definition is not understood by any person, it is his/her fault. In the latest court case, the Kerala High Court was unable to define a hindu. I would be satisfied with a simple definition, "Anyone who professes to be a hindu." A child born to hindus living outside India would be Hindu, unless he desires to leave the fold when he grows up.

Although this has been discussed before, Government of India uses the word 'Hindustan' in many of its establishments and nobody has objected to the use of the word. The word has been used for India from ages. Anybody dissatisfied with that should not use the word and arrange for the matter to be raised in the Indian parliament.

2. All Indian are not Hindus. Where do you get this idea? Who is the fool who thinks like this? If a group has objections to being called Hindu, let them speak out, but do tell us what is your locus standii in the matter, and who has given you the authority to speak on behalf of Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Adivasis, etc. I object again to your calling Hindus a degraded people and I again refuse to reply to you in your degraded language because of my upbringing. You are trying to make Wikipedia a hate-site. Again the use of the word 'Phallus' for a simple symbol of God for some people (it is actually the simplest symbol that can be made, think of children making it on the sea beaches all over the world with an unturned bucket of sand). Can you not think of anything other than Shiva's 'Phallus', I am sure it has done no harm to you. Aupmanyav 05:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Jains not a Minority, read SC judgment: Through a August 05 judgment, the Supreme Court held that Jains are not a minority. The Judgment Highlights are:

a. According to a 11 judges bench speaking through CJ Kripal "for the State Government to decide as to whether the Jain community should be treated as a minority community in their respective states after taking into account their circumstances/conditions in that state". It is also informed that the State Governments of Chhatisgarh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal have already notified Jains as 'minority' in accordance with the provisions of the respective State Minority Commissions Act.

b. The _expression 'minority' has been used in Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution but it has nowhere been defined. Minority as understood from constitutional scheme signifies an identifiable group of people or community who were seen as deserving protection from likely deprivation of their religious, cultural and educational rights by other communities who happen to be in majority and likely to gain political power in a democratic form of Government based on election.

c. The National Minorities Commission does not have the power to define who is a Minority.

d. After the verdict in the eleven judges' Bench in TMA Pai Foundation case (supra), the legal position stands clarified that henceforth the unit for determining status of both linguistic and religious minorities would be 'state'.

e. The so-called minority communities like Sikhs and Jains were not treated as national minorities at the time of framing the Constitution unlike Muslims, Christians. Sikhs and Jains, in fact, have throughout been treated as part of the wider Hindu community, which has different sects, sub-sects, faiths, modes of worship and religious philosophies.

f. The word 'Hindu' conveys the image of diverse groups of communities living in India Thus, 'Hinduism' can be called a general religion and common faith of India whereas 'Jainism' is a special religion formed on the basis of quintessence of Hindu religion.

g. Commissions set up for minorities have to direct their activities to maintain integrity and unity of India by gradually eliminating the minority and majority classes.

h. In a caste-ridden Indian society, no section or distinct group of people can claim to be in majority. All are minorities amongst Hindus.

i. Our concept of secularism, to put it in a nutshell, is that 'state' will have no religion. The states will treat all religions and religious groups equally and with equal respect without in any manner interfering with their individual rights of religion, faith and worship. Aupmanyav 05:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect replaced with weird stuff

I suggest that someone who is knowledgeable about the subject decide whether to put back the redirect or make this a disambiguation page. I don't understand what 2.83.52.23 wrote and I don't know much about Hindu or Hinduism. Kjkolb 10:51, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Colour of Hindus

Whoever has written "Indo-Aryans (light-skinned northerners), Dravidians (dark-skinned southerners)" obviously hasn't seen Indians. The light skin of some of the Southern Brahmins has been attributed to their northern origins(poor dark skinned southern brahmins and dark skinned northerners! I pity them.). But there are so many non-brahmins castes in South that show lighter complexion. However, colour scheme might be very complicated. In a family itself you can see both dark skinned and light skinned children. Well, you can attribute that to north Indian origin of those castes. However, if that's the case you have to declare every South Indian a north Indian since north-west India was the only way through which anyone could enter South India. I suppose we South Indians don't have to be loyal to either to light skin or to dark skin, so we don't accept any such branding from mischievous people. If you want to have an objective analysis origins of Indians, please read Dravidian race. --Manjunatha (22 Aug 2005 21:21 IST)

I feel little knowledge is always dangerous. The person who knows well about the subject should comment and give his suggestion. It will be better for him as well as for society if he can suggest to remove evil practices rather then blaming someone. Each society's beliefs & practices may look weird by other but nobody has a right to blame it.

General words and no signature. I don't know what to say. Okay, I agree! --Manjunatha (21 Sep 2005)

In addition to the light-skinned Dravidian South Indians, there are light-skinned non-Aryans in North India. Color is a poor racial indicator. The Europeans are reported to be close to Africans genetically. Aupmanyav 05:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

What are the disputed points? May be we can remove it or modify it.

Well someone who was seriously agitated by reading caste discrimination news in newspapers, finally tried to strike his POV over this section. I don't think there is anything wrong with the article, if someone feels that the definition of a hindu cannot be so broad OR he does not comes in hinduism under this definition may go to orkut.com and fight. This is an encyclopedia not playground for some n-psycho-pedos. If you are angry why we worship Shiva's phallus then we can't help it, because that's what we do, and wikipedia should be writing about it.--Renegade division 14:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

SocialWorker: The issue of NPOV is because of calling Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists as Hindus. You be a phallus worshipper and worhip god Shiva's phallus along with your mother and sister because your parents have tought you such degraded religion as your holy religion. It is our request not to call Jain, Buddhist and Sikhs as Hindu. These people do not accept Veda's as holy books and certainly these are not phallus worshipper like Bhangi-Brahmin Hindus.

Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs are "Hindus in 'law'", though not "Hindus by 'religion'". That position stands untill there is an amendment of the Indian Constitution (Details above). Reference to mothers and sisters strongly objected to. The 'phallus' fixation is indicative of psychopathic symptoms. The Arbitration Committee should note this. Aupmanyav 05:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is true that this is an encyclopedia but it doesn't mean write anything and insult other religions. Don't give wrong and insulting information because you Bhangi-Brahmis are the most degraded people in this world. Caste Brahmins do all sorts of bad and wrong things under the name of GOD. Caste Brahmins and their beloved Shudras call Veda as holy book which has many degraded things including a story of Sister Fucker Yama-Yami. Please read Riddles In Hinduism written by Bodhisattva Dr. B. R. Ambedkar which gives proof for each everything Dr. Ambedkar was born as Hindu Untouchable and Converted to Buddhism.

This particular piece of argument is extremely bigoted! Whatever Ambedkar's views were, they were his personal views. With all due respect, he could have fought to reform Hinduism but instead chose to convert to Buddhism. Just because he said bad things about Hinduism doesn't make it so. Rohitbd 10:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You say that nothing insulting other religions should be included in the article, but all along you have been insulting Hindus and Hinduism by cuss words. I request that the Arbitration Committee should take a note of that. Words like Bhangi-Brahmin, most degraded people, sister fucker Yama-Yami. We can say the same thing about happenings in Islam and Christianity but refrain to do so. Why should anybody read only B. R. Ambedkar's book, there are other views as well. We have nothing against Ambedkar or his followers converting to Buddhism, it is their personal choice. Aupmanyav 09:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

sikhs and jains

User:172.203.204.9 removed a paragraph about sikhs/ jains w/the comment:"False comments. Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains are NOT Hindus." This may be open to debate, and the relationship between Hindu, Sikh and Jain should probably at least be discussed in this article.

But an adherent of the Sikh or Jain or Buddhist faith may also be recognized and identified as a Hindu, as all three religious systems are inalienably linked with Hinduism, as well as Hindu history and culture. Jainism and Buddhism and Sikhism, in that order, were originally unbound reform movements in India, growing from but essentially a part of mainstream society that has been identified as Hindu. --Alcidebava 19:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to term these religeons as part of Hinduism. Buddhism, for example, does not have the principle of divinity like all other religeons; in that respect, it stands out as unique. Jainism's definition of the universe is very different from the Hindu definition. Sikhism may be an offshoot of Hinduism, but their litturgy makes them distinct. The one commonality is that unlike the "revealed religeons" which came from desert cultures, these religeons do not adhere to the principle of "God's chosen people".

The Constitution of India includes Sikh, Jains, and Buddhist as 'hindu in law' though not 'hindu by religion'. The makers of the Indian Constitution included representatives of Sikhs (Master Tara Singh), Buddhists (Dr. B. R. Ambedkar) and Jains (Kusumkant Jain), etc. Aupmanyav 06:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

beef and balinese

Don't Hindus in Bali eat beef? --Dangerous-Boy

Brahmin definition of Hinduism

I have deleted the following para since it sounds really arrogant and an insult to vast majority of Hindus. Since present day Indian government or any religious organization doesn't classify anybody as non-Hindus because they don't follow any or all of the pre-requisites mentioned below, it's irrelevent. Well, to keep the things simple, in the past, education be it any form( religious or otherwise) was forbidden for majority of people who are identified as Hindus presently. So there was absolutely no chance that except Brahmins anyone else would have learnt Vedas. People who blatantly add such comments(out of ignorance or arrogance) in the article must show some discretion.

Another definition of who a Hindu (or follower of Sanatana Dharma) is, states that a Hindu is one who

1. Accepts the authority of the Vedas.
2. Practices vegetarianism and meditation.
3. Believes in the concepts of karma and reincarnation or rebirth.

Source: http://www.dharmacentral.com/faq.htm

I agree with the concept of Karma as being definitive of Hinduism. But, the other two are principles of vedantic movement, and does not apply to all Hindus at all. A large number of Hindus are Shaivites, and they are non-vegetarian.

Any definition of who is a hindu is like trying to define 'Brahman', Neti, Neti. Kerala High Court failed in the effort. The only valid definition is 'one who professes to be a hindu'. Aupmanyav 06:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Two articles?

The way this article has expanded in the last few days, I think we are gonna have two articles on the same topic. Most of the stuff in this article is already mentioned in the Hinduism article! Refer to the articles on Christian and Muslim and see the difference between them and Christianity and Islam respectively. --Deepak|वार्ता 23:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The Future of This Article

I strongly recommend to my fellow Wikipeople the following:

(1) PLEASE DO NOT DELETE ANY INFORMATION WITHOUT A DECENT INTERVAL OF DISCUSSION. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A PARTICULAR PASSAGE, DISCUSS IT FIRST!

A lot of people put in good time and work into this, only to find it scrapped out in 30 seconds by somebody else. This is purely INSULTING!

IF there are mistakes, problems, etc...THEY NEED TO BE DISCUSSED!

(3) THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE ADHERENTS OF HINDUISM, NOTHING ELSE.

The all Indians are Hindus line need not be discussed at all. It is more political and purely damaging to this article's integrity.

(3) NEED TO FIND SOMEWAY TO INTEGRATE WITHIN THIS ARTICLE INFO ABOUT THE HINDU PEOPLES OF INDIA, WITH THE HINDU PEOPLES OF BALI, ETC.

Hinduism is beyond just India.

- Har Har Mahadev! Nirav Maurya

Can you sign with your user name?--Dangerous-Boy 09:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

DELETIONS

Let me personally remind anybody that if you whack off portions of this article without discussion, you kill Wikipedia's integrity and nothing else - Har Har Mahadev! Nirav Maurya

I dont have any problem with the content of what you wrote. But we do have an article called Hinduism. Whatever I deleted was already mentioned in the Hinduism article. Im sorry, but Ill have to revert yr edits. Go ahead and add the same info to the Hinduism article but all this does not belong to the Hindu article. --Deepak|वार्ता 17:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Religion for the Common Hindu

Hello Deepak,

You don't get my point: The section "Religion for the Common Hindu" is CRITICAL to the Hindu article, because it should talk about what faith and religion mean to the common Hindu.

This section needs more and proper input: which is why I put the notice that this needs more contributions.

If by any chance this is covered in the Hinduism article, then it should be scrapped off there, because that should simply be about religion, not its followers, especially if you have a special section for them.

The core point is we WikiHindus have done a bad job for ourselve. Hinduism has the poorest coverage in this encyclopedia.

Ok, I get yr point. I agree with you that all of the Hinduism-related articles are in a very poor shape. Previously I wan involved in Indian Military- and Kashmir- related articles and later on realised the terrible state of Hinduism-related articles. Ive made some changes and added new pics to the Hinduism article. I think its time to clean up the Hindu article too. Also I would appreciate if you could create an account at Wikipedia. Cheers --Deepak|वार्ता 23:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Merger

Can somebody please hurry up this pending merger? There is no point in procrastinating, since this "Hindu" article is far bigger than the Hindu people one. - Nirav.

I suck at merging. --Dangerous-Boy 22:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"knowing English"

"Over 500 million Hindus are known to be well-versed with that language [= English]."
How well do they know English? Knowing enough of a language for simple market trading or asking the way to somewhere, is not the same as knowing enough of that language to understand speeches about general matters. When I was in Holland I found that plenty of the Dutch there knew enough English to handle their jobs, but not enough for general matters. This I discovered on my first day there, when I asked a customs officer about something that was not part of his job, namely where I could buy petrol for my motorcycle. Anthony Appleyard 17:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, Dutch people are horrible in English. Me and my parents had a lot of problem communicating with them when we initially settled in Holland. I'd say it depends, people in Amsterdam know their English well. Can't say the same for people living in Haarlem (my home city). English is an official language in India and many schools in rural and urban areas have English as an compulsory subject. As a consequence, quite a few Indians (85% of whom are Hindus) have studied English. The answer to the question of how well-versed in English they are, depends upon how well educated they are. --Deepak|वार्ता 03:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Before I went to Holland, I learned Dutch from a textbook. Anthony Appleyard 22:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting. Unfortunately, learning Dutch wasn't so easy for me. --Deepak|वार्ता 22:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE !

"The term Hindu may also simply identify an inhabitant of the India, regardless of religious orientation." - No ! it may not ! Indians can and should only be known as Indians. There is no reason to associate religion with nationalism. Historically Indians might have been known as Hindus but I don't think it would be very appropriate now. Therefore i suggest this line be altered.

I disagree. It would simply be inaccurate to drop the histroy of Hinduism. Hindus are people belonging to land of the river Sindhu, i.e., India - and this has nothing to do with religion. Just because the British used the word "Hindu" to differentiate between religions doesn't mean that the original meaning is lost. As a religion yes, all Indians are not Hindus, but as a definition of ethnicity all Indians are Hindus. Rohitbd 10:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because a person is Indian, does not mean he is Hindu. --Dangerous-Boy 09:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Rohit, It is not as important as you think that we should insist on this. It may have been true in the past, but that is not indicated in the sentence. You can certainly say that he is 'Bharatiya'. Aupmanyav 05:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A Call To Arms

Friends, there is a swiss-german admin of wikipedia called Dbachmann User: Dbachmann who holds deep hatred of Hindus and Indians in his psyche, for reasons best known to him only. He has been vandalizing any good article edits which even mildly favorable to Hindus. In place of that he spreads lies like Bhagvad-Geeta was written after Jesus christ's times and so on.

He was unknown to most Indian wikipedians till he tried to mess up the Rajput article. A cursory glance of his contributions on wikipedia convinced us to report this guy to other admins. He deserves to be banned from wikipedia altogether, and at the very least his admin previledges needs to be revoked. We have filed a complained against him. Here is a link to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29

All self respecting Indians are called upon to go to this link and sign the petition. A complete list of charges against this user can be found in the petition.

Thanks everybody

Sisodia

Nath Sampradaya

It can be noted that the section related to Nath sampradaya in the stub hindu can be expanded more. Like the navanath sampradaya and the tantric sect within it. 1 Your thoughts.

--Aravind Parvatikar 09:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Jain, Buddhist and Sikhs are NOT Hindus

The lines in the given Hindu Article syas " Without doing any of these, a person was a common native, citizen of the land, a Hindu. Who is living in Hindustan he is Hindu." Question 1. Where is Hindustan in this world? There is a Pakistan. People like me who are Native and born-brought up in "India" whos second name is "Bharat" as per the Constitution of India. In India there are several other religion such as Jews, Zorostrians they are here since more than 1000 years ! You can not call them Hindus! So it is our request that please remove the reference of all Non-Brahmical religions from the 'Hindu' article because these people do not fall under any definition of Hinduism. The biggest problem witb Bhangi-Brahmin phallus worshipper is that they Brand anybody as Hindu without taking their permission!

Hello, please sign in with ~~~~ while posting. Now to the question of whether Jains, Buddhists & Sikhs are Hindus. Yes, religion-wise they are not. Technically they are, simply because a "Hindu" is any one who belongs to the land of the river "Sindhu" - which is India. Sorry if it hurts anybody's sentiments but the word "Hindu" was used by the British to distinguish between Christians, Muslims, etc -. Before this usage, the word "Hindu" simply meant one belonging to India. Rohitbd 10:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In India there are many religions. Christen are here since 1st Century. Muslims are here since 9th century. Pasris, Zorostrian all are here. So as per your 'Technical' term all are Hindus? :) this is certainly not acceptable answer. Why are the Brahmin-Shudra people are so confused and have so many different answers while defining 'Hindu'? So if in India Muslims are not Hindus then how can you say that Jain, Buddhist and Sikhs are Technically Hindus! Who defined this technical term? Who are Hindus and who are not? Tilak who started the elephanta headed God (Ganapati) festival has given a definition of Hindu in which the people who do not fit we can not call them Hindu! I gave Tilak's example because he was one of the great leaders in India.User:Socialworker 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Who defined this technical term? The Greek - Just as people from America are called Americans, people from Britain as called British, people from "Bharatvarsha" also called "Hindia" by the greek are "Hindu" - mind it there there wasn't anything called "Hindu" or "Hinduism" in India - these are Greco-Roman words just as "India" is an English word - again derived from "Hindia". I agree that in modern times, for the sake of convenience "Hindu" refers to a person following a certain "religion" - as distinct from Buddhist or Jain or Sikh...The reason why "Brahmin-Shudra" people have difficulty defining "Hindu", it is because there IS NO SUCH THING as a religion called "Hinduism". It is just a way of life, although modern view of it is that of a religion. And I do find your reference to Ganapati, and Hindus in general (like calling them Brahim-Shudras & Bhangi-Brahmins) rhetorical (and slightly offending). I request you to tone down your rhetoric a bit regarding reference to Hindus & Hindu deities. Rohitbd 09:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are the same questions repeated all the time. I suppose the person cannot think beyond that. I do not find the lines you mention in the article. :1. By popular usage India has been known since 2,000 years. Indian Military Bands play the turn-coat Iqbal's song 'Sare Jahan Se Achcha Hindosataan Hamara'. Many of Government of India enterprises include 'Hindustan' in their name. You have an objection? Get the matter raised in the Indian Parliament and get the Constitution amended. BTW, could you explain why Iqbal called India as 'Hindustan'?

2. Non-Brahminical indigenous religions are clubbed with Hinduism (Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists would be considered as Hindu in law as per the Constitution of India. Have a problem with this? Get the matter raised in the Indian Parliament and get the Constitution amended.

Your reference to Hindus as 'Bhangi-Brahmin phallus worshippers' is derogatory and should be noted by the Arbitration Committee.

'Technical' term all are Hindus?'. Use correct terminology. 'Certainly not acceptable', choke on it, go jump from Qutub Minar. Can't help.

The Constitution of India describes a Hindu in the following words:

Article 25 (2)(b) of the Constitution stipulates that “the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion”.

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 goes in greater detail to define this “legal Hindu”, by stipulating in Section 2 that the Act applies:

(a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms and developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,

(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion, and

(c) to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion.

Hindus are not confused on this, but you are. This is the status as per the Constitution. Some Jains appealed against it but the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. Every one is free to have their opinion on who a hindu is. Lokmanya Tilak had his own, I have my own. Aupmanyav 15:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

People in India are called as Indians OR People in ‘Bharat’ are called as Bharatiya. India and Bharat are our legal and constitutional names. All over world people should accept what we call ourselves not what outsiders call us. We are the World’s Largest Democracy! So you can call us Indians OR Bharatiya but certainly NOT Hindus.

I am not offending anybody because these are your religious practices and anybody can not brand me as anti-Hindu because I am not writing anything baseless or biased. Till date whatever I wrote has proof and I’ve given them with references to your own religious books as well as present social traditions. There are many Varna and Caste based social practices present among Brahmin-Shudras even today. All Brahmins use their Varna OR Caste Name in public place with pride so I think there is nothing offending or I am not hurting them. About Shudras if they accept Veda and Religious books as their holy books, if they want Brahmin Varna people to perform their religious rituals and want to remain in Brahmanism then it is their choice. We should call Muslims as Muslim, a Buddhist as Buddhist, a Brahmin as Brahmin and Shudra as Shudra. There is neither wrong nor offending. I hesitate to call anybody as ‘Hindu’ because this word has created lot of confusion. The Brahmins rejected King Shivaji’s coronation because for Brahmins he was a Shudra. King Shivaji forcefully brought one Brahmin Varna Person named GagaBhatt for his coronation from Northern India as no Brahmin Varna person in his empire (i.e. Some Part of Present Maharashtra State ) was readies to coronate him. This is truth! we should know truth as truth and untruth as untruth. Now the Varna System has created thousands of caste and sub-caste e.g. Brahmin, Iyyer, Reddy, Vanniyyar, Rajput, Maratha, Kunbi, Koshti, Agri, Chambhar, Chamar, Mala, Madiga, Mang, Mahar, Bhangi etc.I can not name these thousands of castes sub-castes while discussing the issues so it is better to call collectively as Bhangi-Brahmins. When we say Bhangi-Brahmins it includes castes starting from Caste Brahmin till Caste Bhangi. There is a Caste Hierarchy so with these two words anybody can understand the true situation and it addresses the issue perfectly. So instead of calling somebody as Hindu it is better to call Brahmin-Shudra in terms of Varna and Bhangi-Brahmins in terms of Castes. There is nothing offending or insulting. I’ve already clearly stated the difference between Varna and Caste above.

There is a law against insulting any person in India by calling him/her Bhangi or Chamar even if he/she may belong to that caste. THE PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 1955 (http://www.helplinelaw.com/bareact/index.php?dsp=protection-civil)

THE Chairman of Industrial Development Bank of India, Mr V.P. Shetty, was arrested under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, Section 7 (1) D, by the Mumbai police. He was released soon, on a bond of Rs 10,000. Mr Shetty was arrested on the orders of the High Court in a case filed by IDBI General Manager Mr B.W. Ramteke for allegedly passing casteist remarks. (http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/05/07/stories/2005050702320300.htm)

Your using these derogatory words itself shows your scant respect for members of these castes. The Arbitration Committee should note that and reject your remarks as being bereft of any value and born out of your hatred of Hindus just because you prefess some other faith which is insensitive to followers of other religions. Aupmanyav 06:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

About Gods 1. If Ganapati is having Elephant Head then that is the symbolic representation of one personnel God by Brahmin-Shudras about their religious faith. 2. If Brahmin-Shudras worships Phallus of so-called God Shiva i.e. Lingam it is their religion so those people who want to follow such things can follow it religiously along with their mother and sisters. Finally it is their religion not my religion. For all above things you can find proofs not only in Veda, Purana and DharmaShastras but even today in present, practical, Social, Religious life of Brahmin-Shudras in term of Varna OR Bhangi-Brahmins in terms of Caste.

I object again to the derogatory use of the word Brahmin-Shudra instead of Hindu, again for the use of the word 'Phallus' for a symbol of God which is sacred to us. Then again, you bring in the mention of mothers and sisters without any porpose. I ask the Arbitration Committee as to why people like you are allowed to say derogatory things about Hinduism. This does not go with the principles of Wikipedia. Your remarks should be removed without any delay. Aupmanyav 06:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

3. It is BhagvatPurana and Brahma Purana which tells you that so-called God Brahma raped his daughter Saraswati. It is Vishnu and Varaha Purana which tells so-called God Vishnu took many incarnations such as Varaha i.e. Pig to save the earth. Your concepts about God are really confused as well as degraded. In this world people believe there is one supernatural power named God but what you Brahmin-Shudras believe is certainly different and surprising as well as disgusting. Before calling anybody as anti-Hindu first understand your own religion, way of life or faith whatever you call it. What a Religion, what a Faith or what is this Dharma you believe or follow!!! But I don’t want to change your religion neither I am anti-Hindu. We should try to understand all religions or faiths as well as SOCIAL and RELIGIOUS Traditions.

You are too dumb to understand the meaning of the mythological story of Brahma moving towards Rohini (and not Saraswati). This is concerned with a change of calender around 2,500 B.C. when people in Middle-east and Europe were barely-clad savage hunters and gatherers. You say that our concepts about God are confused. Let me remind you that more than half of world's people consider your own view about God as foolish and archaic. And furthermore, who has asked you to give your Valued personal opinions. Is Wikipedia the place for it. We are not asking you to believe what we believe in. Aupmanyav 06:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Even in 21st century all women (She might be a Caste Brahmin OR Caste Bhangi) in your term Hindu Women i.e. your own mother and sisters are not allowed to enter in many temples. This is the situation today! For proof go to a Temple known as ShaniShinganapur near Shirdi in Ahmednagar District of Maharashtra. This is just one example.

5. Untouchables are not allowed to drink water or not allowed to enter in temples. Hindu people from Rajasthan, Gujarat are frontrunners in such type of atrocities. What kind of Hindu Religion, Hindu way of life are you talking about? Is it your way of life today? Let it be your way of life but people all over the world should know the truth. YES this type faith is the real Hinduism and you people follow it.

6. I demanded that whatever you write about Hinduism that might be Religious, Social or Political but please write the TRUTH! Please don’t be hypocrite. Don’t insult other religions especially Jain, Buddhist and Sikh.

7. Call India as India OR Bharat. Don’t insult our nation by calling it Hindustan. The meaning of Hindoo in Persian Language is ‘Slave’. We are not slaves. We a independent democratic Coutry. User:Socialworker

If there are people who are denied their rights they can invoke the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 with police and the courts. Tell me where we have degressed from truth? And where we have insulted the Jains, Buddhists, and the Sikhs. Do not make unfounded accusations. Illustrate by giving the example from the Article. Also let us know why Iqbal called India as 'Hindustan', I suppose you would credit him greater intelligence than yourself. We know persians, they are our fellow Aryan brothers. They are not as foolish as you are to give 'slaves' as the meaning of 'hindus'. And they are shias. Do not insult the persians in this way. Aupmanyav 11:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There are anti-social elements who misuse the caste system to their advantage. A majority don't. I don't and I'm sure most of the Hindus don't and we speak out against it. You have taken a social evil and labelled the entire Hindu belief system as bad. All the time you have been demanding from us not to insult Jains, Buddhists & Sikhs, but all the time you have constantly used derogatrory and demeaning language against Hindus. Aren't you being a hypocrite now? Asking others not to insult other faiths but at the same time spewing venom against Hinduism? Rohitbd 13:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed trolls. deeptrivia (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Untouchables i.e. Dalits are NOT Hindus

The 240 million people in India are branded as AVARNA i.e. people who do not have any Varna. These people do not belong to any of the Varna defined by Veda and DharmaShastras i.e. Brahmins, Khsatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. For reference see Veda Book (Chapter) Number: 10, Verse Number: 90 and the Stanza Numbers: 11 and 12. This given the Origin of Brahmnical Varna System. The DharmaShastras such as Apastambha DharmaSutra, Manusmriti e.g are the religions law system of Brahmin-Shudra people have difined the Social Religious Laws and even today the Bhangi-Brahmins follow these anti-human and Castiest Laws! Please read Apastambha DharmaSutra Law Number : 4 and 5.

Please keep this caste-racial crap out of Wikipedia --Deepak|वार्ता 16:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Castiesm and Racism are two different things. Don't mix them. Racism do not have any kind of religious sanctions but Castiesm i.e. VarnaShram Dharma is a religious system. The Castiesm is systematically created using Religious books such as Veda and Religious Law books such as Manusmriti etc. There are many I've given few important books. When we discuss Hinduism or Brahmanism then Castiesm and Untouchability are its an integral part. User:Socialworker

Yes, Varna and caste are important to Hinduism. Varna is the quality which God gives us at time of birth. Different people excel in different things. It is the principle of nature. Caste is important because every group of people like to safeguard there traditions, food, language, etc. It has nothing to do with religion. It is peoples' own choice. Would a girl of Syed family like to be married in a Julaha family, even if there is no bar in Islam to such a marriage. You cannot force people against their wishes in these matters. Aupmanyav 11:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It is trick of caste Brahmins that for their own Castiesm and Varnasharm Dharma and sin they start blaming God! How god can crete any social discrimination among human beings? If he created this then why Casteism and Untouchability are not part of other religion?The person "Aupmanyav" on one side says that he in an atheist and other side talks that God has created Varna and Caste! So strange? This proves how these Caste Brahmins are hypocrates. Arbitration committee should note this. Mr. "Aupmanyav" you can not blame god for the worst things created by caste Brahmins who are Born Shudras as per their own religious Books. For your information I am giving you the latest link. of Caste Atrocities. [God Based God Based Discrimination Discrimination Create by Caste Brahmins and implemented by Hindus http://www.indianexpress.com/story/3068.html ] This is a just a very small example I can give hundreds of proofs.

Mr. Socialworker is too aggressive but not wrong. He has pointed out many true things that the world is unknown. The Anti-Christen, Anti-Muslim and Anti-Buddhist Brahmins are religiously degraded community and I dont want to mention the dirtiest tradition of Brahmin Men, Women worshipping Shiv Lingam because Socialworker has written lot of about it. It is request to Arbitration committee to give enough space for the issue of Religious Practices, Caste and Untouchability on any topic related to Hindu or Hinduism. Caste, Varna and Dirty religious practices are the integral part of Hinduism so everything should get enough space. To make the article Hindu neutral both Good and Bad thing should get space in all articles related to Hinduism. Arbitration committee please take note of my comments. Dhammafriend 04:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Being a Hindu doesn't necessarily mean belonging to a caste. Caste system was invented during a certain period (i.e. Manu's time) by Hindus to make it easier to manage society. So would it be sensible to say that all those before Manu were not Hindus? More than anything else the caste system was meant to be a tool to maintain order in society, which unfortunately started being misused by the upper castes - those very people who were supposed to safeguard and amend it started misusing it thereby bringing great damage to the very essence of Hinduism. Rohitbd 10:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't confuse between Varna and Caste. The social division created by Religious Books and Laws e.g Veda and DharmaShastras has been misunderstood by many people. There are religiously created four Varnas i.e. Brahmin, Kshtriya, Vaishya and Shudra in Vedic Religon now-a-days it is called as Hindu Religion. Then over the period of time all these are divided into hundreds of caste and sub-castes with the help of religious laws e.g. ManuSmriti. Now-a-days the caste is determined only by birth. Rest all people are Avarna irrespective of there religion or caste. There is social division in all religions. Lets take one example of Islam but don’t start debating only on Islam this just an example to understand religions comparatively. Muslims call Non-Muslims as ‘Kafirs’! The non-muslims can be Christen, Buddhist, Brahmin, Shudra or anybody. Now in Caste Brahmin created religion i.e. so-called Hindu religion the people who come in their religious boundaries irrespective of caste-sub-castes they are known as SaVarna i.e. people having ‘Varna’ identification. The Varna might be Brahmin or Shudra all are SaVarna irrespective of caste and sub-castes. Other people who do not accept Veda or Varna were termed as Avarna i.e. people who do not belong to any Varna of Brahmin created Hindu religion. As well as the AVarna people (Jain, Buddhist, Sikh and Untouchable) are not phallus worshippers like Caste Brahmins or Shudra Hindus. So AVarna, Out-Castes or Untouchables are NOT Hindus. Hindus gave very bad treatment to all these Non-Hindus. But currently this is not the issue what kind of treatment these AVarna people got. Current issue is that don’t call Jain, Buddhist, Sikhs and Untouchables (Dalits) as Hindus. So please correct the current Hindu Article with proper information. Discuss on ‘Dispute’ OR ‘NPOV’. Don't remove Dispute OR NPOV without discussion User:Socialworker

What is sanctioned by hindu religion is 'Varna'. Caste is not mentioned. Castes have been created by people. Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs are not being considered here. Where do we say that they are hindus? They are not hindus unless they call themselves like that. Since you have talked about 'Phallus' a hundred times on this page, let me remind you just once that the aperture of the stone that was kissed by Mohammad and which every muslim desires to kiss atleast once in his life is very much like a strechedout vulva, and people insert their head in it to kiss the stone. Any reason for that? If hindus gave bad treatment to a part of their society in certain period, they are making ample amends for it. You should not be the one to complain about it. Aupmanyav 12:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have something against Hindus. I can understand that casteism is indeed bad, but then what is your problem with the article mentioning the origin of the word "Hindu" - as someone belonging to "Hindia" or "India" or "Bharat" - here "Hindu" has the same meaning as "Bharatiya" - meaning a native of "Bharat" - and how its modern meaning of signifying a religion came to be? Rohitbd 09:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not against Hindu. The biggest problem with Brahmin-Shudras is that you brand anybody as Hindu OR anti-Hindu without defining who is Hindu and who is not Hindu. My demand is whatever you write then write the true things at least don't insult other religions or faiths. Social division is there in every religion but we should be open to write the true things. All of you Brahmin-Shudras please don't think that wikipedia is a garbage collection. I think Wikipedia is an Important Information Resource available to world user. User:Socialworker

Not every thing can be defined in a normal way. Can you define Allah? As I have said, 'one who professes to be so is a Hindu'. There cannot be any doubt about that. He is required to act according to his Dharma. As for personal beliefs, there are no bars and Hinduism encourages people to search for truth themselves and not take what is mentioned in books without analysing it a thought as the Muslims and Christians are supposed to do. If there is a difference of opinion Hinduism accepts that. Generally Hindus believe in the Vedas and Geeta, in Karma, in rebirth, and many Gods whom they consider to be forms of one. It is not necessary for you to understand it because your prejudices preclude it. Aupmanyav 13:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You claim to know better about Hindus than Hindus...why? What do you mean "you Brahmin-Shudras"? What or who gives you the authority to comment on what Hinduism is and what it isn't when you don't consider yourself a Hindu? We are not talking about Sikhism or Jainism or Buddhism here. We are talking of what it is to be a Hindu. And this is bound to include some references to Sikhs, Jains & Buddhists, because the history of these religions is closely and inextricably tied to Hinduism. If you have a problem with that then please expend your energies elsewhere. Rohitbd 13:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed trolls. deeptrivia (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. But then going by this guy's aggressiveness, we might well end up with revert wars. Rohitbd 14:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

From stopping through, I'd say that SocialWorker brings up some good points. I don't know how often the editing / reverting has really been going on, but I wouldn't consider him a troll at all just from reading this discussion. Anyway, Rohitbd, you seem as if you are an idealist. Realistically, in society, the caste system was a way to keep people in their place, and still is. Brahmins made themselves the only ones able to read the Vedas in order to maintain their power and prestige. Either way, if the caste you are born into is really an outward manifestation of someone's karma, then I see no reason why you should have to die in order to move upward in status. There is no reason why the poor and lowest classes should not be educated to have a better life. How are you going to tell the difference between those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, and the hardworking educated lower class, well if they are given the opportunity? Guess you'll just have to look at the extended family and see where they sit. You can discriminate against someone based on their family members then. I don't know how current Indian society is, I am speaking of years past. From what I have read, Hinduism has become a lot more modern, with people adorning their televisions with flowers while watching videos of pilgrimages. Of course, it defeats the purpose of a pilgrimage, but most modern people are shallow, aren't we? Author:RyanP

What do you say about his using the word 'phallus' a hundred times? How about repeating things which are not even mentioned in the Article? How about his referring to our mothers and sisters in every paragraph? If we did it to you, would you like that? This is not freedom, this is licence; and the Arbitration Committee should take a note of that. Brahmins have been given this responsibility by the Hindu society and they were supposed to study the scriptures for years and observe strict rules. There are hundreds of examples in Hinduism where the Shudras were venerated and had achievements no lesser than Brahmins. The writer of Ramayana, Valmiki; the compiler of Vedas and MadBhagawat, VedaVyas; and Vidur, who was considered to be the wisest of all, are some examples. There is a whole lot of scholars and devotees even in the medival period who were not Brahmins but are venerated by Hindus, Kabir, Ravidas, Abdul Rahim Khan-e-Khanan, many Azhawars, are some of the examples, some of them were not even Hindus. Can you cite this kind of tolerance in any other religion? What education was there in the medival period? What can you do if somebody is born with a silver spoon in his mouth and somebody is not? Blame God for it. Hinduism was never a very materialistic religion. People were advised to remain happy in whatever situation they were born because Hinduism understood that money is not the measure of happiness. No modern people should not be dismissed as shallow, but times change, ideas change. This is known as yuga-dharma in Hinduism, the law of the day. Yes, modern India is a lot different from the old one, people in large cities do not care about caste, things are changing even in smaller places, all this is supported by a parliament which has a large representation from the formerly disadvantaged classes, and the law gives full protection to them and the world's most vigorous affirmative action program operates. Can you tell me why some people would like to crucify Hindus? Aupmanyav 14:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the caste system & treatment of Dalits.

From my last semester class on Eastern Religion, I had learned that the basic caste system was instantiated in India through the verses of the Rg Veda "From his mouth came the priestly class / from his arms, the rulers. / the producers came from his legs; / from his feet came the servant class." The separation of society into class came about before this work however, and before modern Hinduism. When the Indo-Europeans conquered the indigenous people of what is now India, the indigenous were considered socially inferior and became servants. The caste system has become a part of Hinduism. And Hinduism is such a broad religion, as it's really just a term for a wide range of Indian religious practices, with varying doctrine and doctrinal works, that there are guaranteed to be many different subsects with widely varying opinions on how deep the caste system is entrenched. What you should look at is SOCIALLY how does society run, how often do lower classes really get derided without rebuke to the perpetrator, not only what are the central tenets that people profess to believe, but would turn their backs on because they're only human. Author:RyanP

Should you be talking so authoratively about Hinduism if your exposure to it is limited to a class in your last semester on Eastern Religions. What RigVeda was talking about is 'Varna'. Yes, God (for those who believe, I am an atheist Hindu) gives each person different qualities to excell in various fields, and to some he does not. Caste is an institution created by people themselves to safeguard their language and traditions. I am a Kashmiri Brahmin, I would not like my daughter married to an Karnataka Iyengar Brahmin. Our traditions, language, food, festivals, rituals are different. They would have an effect on the happiness of the couple. It does not mean that I would consider Iyengars any less than my caste. Similarly there are Maharashtrian Deshasth Brahmins and Bihari Maithil Brahmins and Central Indian Kanyakubja Brahmins and the Gaur Bengali Brahmins, the list is unending and we are comfortable with that. India is a large country. A small community may also number in millions. This happened in every group of people. There were so many foreigners who came to India, the Aryans, the Parthians, the Scythians, the Kushans, the Greeks. Most of the early immigrants accepted Hinduism and became part of the Hindu society, retaining there particular characterstics, like the Italians, the Irish, and the Spanish in America. Why should we deny them this freedom? Casteist discrimination is an offense in law in India according to the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (Kindly read my post above relating to that). There have been convictions for those who have violated the act. Aupmanyav 14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My view regarding the caste system...

First off the very basic tenet of Hinduism is non-violence and any sort of injury without adequate cause or reason, be it physical or mental, amounts to violence and hence breaking of this tenet. With this in mind, why would the caste-system be created? To discriminate and persecute? NO. Its sole purpose was civic administration. Yes, there were certain rules to abide by and the so-called highest caste (Brahmins) had the toughest rules. This is why Brahmins are held in high-esteem - not because of their caste, but because of the tough life that is associated with being a Brahmin (they must not have ambition for money or power, they must practice penance and tapas, they must obtain food only through alms and that too just the amount needed to subsist, and so on). Unfortunately Brahmins (and other higher-castes) started misusing their powers and went after money and fame, and hid behind their caste to avoid being questioned. This is what has resulted in degradation and caused immense harm to the very essence of Hinduism - as can be seen in the preceding discussions. A Brahmin is supposed to see everyone with the same eye, i.e., as an embodiment of the ultimate reality/truth/God called Brahmn - and that includes *everyone* and *everything*. This automatically makes every caste, non-caste, outside member equal. Also the caste system dictates that anyone who breaks the rules is an outcaste (Dalit, in modern parlance) but not a non-Hindu - however it is the innate human trait of hatred that made the caste members denounce, abuse and demean Dalits. But this is against the basic rule of Hinduism: that of non-violence. Being an outcaste does not justify violence of any kind. Unfortunately this has been forgotten by the so-called high-castes...

Bottomline: Hinduism IS NOT the caste-system or varnashrama, although this is a part of Hindu practices and rituals. It is extremely erroneous to say that a Hindu necessarily must belong to a certain caste.

Castiesm and Untochability are the permanent features of Hinduism. User:Socialworker

Your knowledge is too limited to understand many things. The madarasas do not teach everything though they are good at teaching hate. Castes or guilds (Iron-workers, gold-workers, etc.) are produced by the desire of people to safeguard their traditons, expertise, etc. They have nothing to do with Hinduism. Yes, Brahmins were respected in Hindu society, but they paid dearly for that respect. They were supposed to live on the charity of the society, observe many restricting rules, spend their life in studying and teaching of scriptures, remember vast literature by heart with correct words, sounds, inflections. They safeguarded the Vedas and other scriptures over a period of some 10,000 years, while their Persian, Roman, and Greek brothers forgot it. As mentioned in previous posts, a learned hindu will not see difference even among those who profess his religion, or Islam or christianity. He is supposed to see 'Brahman' in all that he sees, even in an animal or vegetation or an inert object. That is why I say, it is impossible for you to understand this. The differences are only superficial. The demeaning of dalits is fiction, hindus lived together for thousands of years peacefully, each person engaged in his God-given position. It is mostly in the muslim period and especially in the British period that the society took a dive, because the materialistic principles came to the fore. No feature is permanent in any religion, more so in Hinduism, which has the freedom to change with times. Those who do not change face oblivion. That is the principle of evolution. We are very good at it. Aupmanyav 14:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

They are not. It is your misinformed judgement and bias. Rohitbd 13:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You deleted the link which I gave from National Geographic Channel about Untouchables. You are an idiot Rohit because you don't understand that wikipedia is a systematically arranged encyclopedia. For your reference I am again giving you the link and I can give hundreds of more references. You can delete the link but everything is traced. Don’t think that the Shudras like you the Phallus Worshipper who think that elepnahta head is God real idiots! So if you want you can again delete the link which I am giving again.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0306/feature1/ User:Socialworker

• http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part3/chap6.htm
• http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part3/chap2.htm

This Brahmin organization is now-a-days under police inspection for doing all anti-human atrocities especially for molesting children. You Phallus worshipper you will never change. By the way Mr. Shudra Deepak and Mr. Shudra Rohit did you celebrate ShivRatri i.e. God Shiva’s b’day along with you mother and sister on 26th Feb 2006? It was Phallus Worshipping day i.e. Lingam! What a festival! Your mother and sister must have enjoyed the great festival. Keep it up. Ask American/European boys for more help :) they will help them with their 12 inch ! In your religion everybody is Shudra by birth that is why I call u shudra!

User:Socialworker

So, you are back at your foolishness and hate. With 'phallus' in mind, calling Deepak and Rohit as Shudras. Referring to mothers and sisters, which should be respected even when they belong to an enemy. Now, you come to measuring the lengths also, how long the Wikipedians are supposed to bear worms like you. The Arbitration Committee should take a note of your posts. Aupmanyav 14:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Quoted from kamakoti.org (emphasis mine):

"One morning, he (Sri Sankara) was returning to his monastery after a bath in the Ganga. Leading four dogs an outcaste, who should not approach him, came along. He was bidden by Sri Sankara to go away from his path. Upon this, the outcaste queried him as to what he bade to go away; if it was the outcaste's body or his Atman. If it was the former, he said, it was compacted of the same five elements as Sri Sankara's own body and was not different. So it need not go away. If it was the Atman, then according to the Advaita that Sri Sankara taught, the Atman of all persons, brahmana or outcaste, was one only and, being identical and all-pervasive, it cannot move away. Sri Sankara immediately understood that his questioner was no ordinary outcaste, but a realised soul and broke forth into a pentad of verses acclaiming the outcaste's greatness. Sri Sankara said in the verse that he deemed a person of such spiritual realisation to be his Guru, be he an outcaste or a brahmana. According to the legend, it was Lord Siva Himself who appeared as this outcaste. The dogs were the four vedas. The outcaste and his retinue vanished and Lord Siva appeared and blessed Sri Sankara exhorting him to finish writing his commentaries."

— http://www.kamakoti.org/souv/2-4.html

The above clearly shows that even an outcaste can question a Brahmin. And only if the Brahmin is truly a Brahmin will he respond as Sri Sankara did above, instead of cursing or demeaning the outcaste. This also shows that outcastes are not necessarily non-Hindus.

Rohitbd 10:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't give 7th century example but tell the 21st century situation. Dalit women are publically raped and are paraded naked in many part of India. These are not only social problems but these are varna and caste based religious problem created by Brahmnism i.e. so-called Hinduism. User:Socialworker

Which society unfortunately does not have rape. It is a problem of law. At least we do not ask for four male witnesses to prove rape, and do not accuse the raped woman of raising the issue just to migrate to Americas. We do not ask a raped women to leave her husband and become wife of her father-in-law. Our scriptures do not allow someone to marry his daughter-in-law and make the son divorce her for this purpose. We do not approve marriage of pre-puberty girls to gulf-sheikhs for money. We know that you are from a very egalitarian society. Aupmanyav 15:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are equating Hinduism to casteism. These are not problems due to the caste-system per se. These are problems of not understanding Hinduism and misusing one's power, caste and ignorance. This is possible in *any* religion. Do not blame the whole of Hinduism for this. I agree that the caste system is being misused, but simply blaming the caste-system is not the answer. It is like saying that "since a knife can cut throats, the knife is bad". This is absurd. You are blaming the tool rather than the misusers. The solution lies not in blaming Hinduism or the caste-system, but in educating the dalits and reminding the higher-castes of their obligations. Rohitbd 13:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Brahmanism i.e. so-called Hinduism mean only castiesm and untouchability. You said even an outcaste can question a Brahmin It means there is castiesm and untouchability. To be a Hindu you must have some Caste Identification. When you ask somebody who are you? The answer might be Muslim, Buddhist or Christen then people don't inquire further. But if you say I am a Hindu then the the person who is asking the question himself is Hindu will not be satisfied with that answer because then next question is which caste? Brahmin-Shudra are hypocrite people. Now if the person in Non-Brahmin i.e. Shudra then he will never say I am Shudra but he will talk about his Caste Name. That is the Caste identification. More than 600 million so-called Hindus are using their Castes to get some benefit from government today! Hindus do not marry outside their castes. Inter-caste marriages are religiously prohibited. Very few will dare to do that.

Says who? Intercaste marriages are not prohibited in Hinduism.

Read your own religious books and See the current social practices User:Socialworker

In India, we do not even ask for the religion that a person follows, what to talk of caste. This is considered a very foolish and a boorish question. How does it concern one, if the person is a hindu, or a muslim, or a christian? That is his personal belief. All people have the same rights. If someone asks me this question, I would put a rejoinder, 'Why? Do you want to marry your sister to me?' Aupmanyav 15:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The ceremony is different for inter-caste marriage and it is known as "Gandharva-vivaaha". And caste-system doesn't mean casteism. Casteism is misuse of caste system. You are using derogatory terms for Hindus but at the same time you haven't revealed your religion or faith. Why? Besides this article is about Hinduism and if Hindus view Sikhs, Jains & Buddhists to be one of them then there's nothing you can do about it. Indeed the founders of these religions were Hindus. We as Hindus do not wish to discriminate against these religions by saying "you are Sikh, you are Buddhist, you are Jain", and so on...but you seem to be hell-bent on discriminating against Hindus. I am sure none of these founders would talk of Hinduism in the way you do. They understood that things need to change in Hinduism and changed it by starting their own school of thought - which became religions in their own right (and which was perhaps not the founders' real intention). Rohitbd 13:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This view of Brahmin-Shudras i.e. so-called Hindus that Jain, Buddhist and Sikhs are Hindus is absolute wrong. If you can't define who is Hindu then how can you brand the Founders Of these religion are Hindus? If you say people in India are Hindus then will you call Muslims, Parsis etc. as Hindus? User:Socialworker

Hinduism was not founded by a camel driver. Please see above for my definition of a Hindu. If other people have different definition, that does not worry me. Hinduism was developed by the combined wisdom of the people of India. Aupmanyav 15:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Notice to WikiHindus.

This user who goes by the name User:SocialWorker seems to have some serious issues with Hinduism. S/he has been constantly using derogatory terms to describe Hinduism and its customs. Rohitbd 13:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What derogatory terms? Calling Varna Brahmin as Brahmin is it derogatory? Calling Varna Shudra as Shudra is it derogatory? Calling Caste Bhangi as Bhangi is it derogatory? No NOT at all. There are thousands of caste-subcastes that I can't name here.

Whatever term I used are very normal and common terms used. These terms have Religious, social OR legal sanctions. Legally in India Caste Brahmins come in Open Category, Caste Kunbi, Nvavi i.e. Barber come in OBC category and the OutCastes Untouchables and Aboriginal Tribes come in SC/ST category. There is nothing derogatory. Now if Brahmins are Phallus Worshipper then it is their religious custom and I've made it very clear that I am not objecting their customs. My points are very clear in the dispute. Don't brad me as anti-Hindu as well as don't say that I am purposefully using any derogatory terms. To know about so-called Hindus or Hinduism all are few MUST things that I mentioned. User:SocialWorker

If there is nothing derogatory about it, then what are you complaining about? Though you are being abusive about the symbols that we hold sacred. Indian Constitution has listed these castes only to provide special facilities to their members. Aupmanyav 15:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Obvious case of trolling. A mere complete misinformation is not enough reason to write such comments. A considerable bit of hatred also goes into it. deeptrivia (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. How do we protect articles from vandalism by such characters? For all I know, it will lead to a revert war if we put anything in the article that this guy doesn't agree with. Rohitbd 14:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The best solution is to ignore his/her comments and and revert the changes the user makes --Deepak|वार्ता 17:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.--Dangerous-Boy 09:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You can can revert the changes that I did. But changing the Name Of a Nation is a Constitutional and Legal thing. Name of our nation in India, that is Bharat [1]. So nobody in this world can change call it as Hindustan. So before reverting the changes that I did please think twice. Wikipedia give attention to the dispute. These people have branded me as TROLL but I think it is always better to be legallu correct that good for these people who are posting wrong information to the world community. User:SocialWorker

Ask Mohammad Iqbal as to why he called India as 'Hindustan' and sang its praises. As mentioned a hundred times to erase the word 'Hindustan' from India, you would need to get the matter raised in the Indian parliament. Aupmanyav 15:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, to SocialWorker the word "Bharat" orginated from the Hindu epic, Mahabharata! (just teasing the troll!) And even Buddhists believe Buddha was a Hindu, then saw how bad the caste system is etc. so founded Buddhism.

We know how to deal with Brahmin-Shudra. First define who a Hindu is? You Brahmin-Shudra people are hypocrite by birth. You never feel any shame while worshipping Phallus i.e. erected penis along with your Mother ans Sister that shows your degraded religion to the world. So there is no need to tease me! It is my request to all American and European Men to give their phallus to all Brahmin women to suck because that is how they are going to please their GOD! Characterless Brahmins have dared to change the name of India.The word Hindoo mean Slave. These Brahmins have blood relation with Muslims people should know the top secrets of the degraded community Brahmin-Shudras. Now I am using constitutional and legal ways to counter the Brahmin-Shudras; you must not call India as Hindustan.It is Bharat only. Another thing is that till date I haven’t done anything wrong with the article. If the dispute is not solved with discussion everyday I’ll delete it. Lets see how many times you Brahmin-Shudra revert the article? RFCUser:SocialWorker

The word 'Hindu' is defined a hundred times on this page. When would that be enough for you? If you can continue till the Arbitration Committee gets tired of it, we can also continue. Your reference to phallus, mother, and sister, is in lowest for a hundredth time is a all-time low in culture for Wikipedia. It only highlights the teaching your religion gives and your personal upbringing. The sucking part is making Wikipedia a porn site. I did not know that Wikipedia allows this kind of discussion. It is a shame. Yes, we agree that you are our relations, you are born of the union of muslims invaders and hindu mothers, is that the reason that you have developed into this kind of a being which shames human kind. You have not done anything wrong with the article, and please do not try your hand at that, that also will be fruitless. Arbitration Committee should take a note of the threat. Is it Al-Quaida to rule in Wikipedia? Aupmanyav 15:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The eating of meat

I am noticing that there are some changes and questions as to whether "some" or "many" or "a few" Hindus eat meat. [2] This is all very qualitative; do any real numbers exist measuring this? I can say anecdotally that most younger Hindus I know eat meat sometimes (but all abstain at certain times), but I live in the US, which is of course a whole different story. In any case, it's best if we actually had some numbers for this. --Deville (Talk) 03:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Estimates vary. According to FAO [3], in 42 percent of all households (not only Hindus), they have never eaten fish, meat or eggs. You can safely exclude Muslim population from vegetarians, and that gives around 50%. From personal experience, the Indian "non-vegetarians" are mostly just occasional meat eaters, eating meat something like once a month or on special occasions. A good indicator is the fact that the annual per capita meat consumption in India is 4 lbs against a global average of 38 lbs. deeptrivia (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent sourcing; this answers my question exactly. Should this be in the article then? --Deville (Talk) 04:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Could be, if considered important enough. deeptrivia (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What does it say in the vedas about eating meat?--Dangerous-Boy 09:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, in ancient times meat consumption wasn't taboo. See the article Agastya#Legends_about_Agastya for the legend behind meat being forbidden or at least restricted for Hindus. As per this page, in the other yugas, cow & horse sacrifice (and offering their meat as prasad) were allowed. However whether eating meat (esp. beef) as part of normal diet is allowed or not is not clear (or I didn't read it deeply enough). Only in the current kaliyuga is it forbidden. According to this page from the same web-site, it states the principle of causing as little harm, damage or pain as possible in order to feed ourselves. So the least one can do to survive is eat vegetarian food instead of meat, since its much easier to cultivate vegatables & rice/pulses/etc., than it is to cultivate animals for slaughter. Rohitbd 14:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)