Talk:Hindu views on evolution/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Who is Cremo and what he has to do with Hinduism?

You should change the name of the article to ISKCON and Creationism. ISKCON, even if they claim to be hindus (some do not) are only marginal to Hinduism. There are hundreds of sects like them in Hinduism, each with its own world theory. Cremo, for all we know, may be a crank. Aupmanyav 10:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cremo might be a crank. However, he is a representative of a sect that is one of the most visible (not necessarily the most numerous) in the West. I have some sources that say they are Hindu, some that say they are not, some that say they are only related etc. Never the less, he is getting his motivation from the Vedas. I wanted to call it Vedic creationism or maybe it would be better to call it Vedas and creationism. This currently is the 3rd title in 2 days, and it does contain nonISKCON material. So we will see.--Filll 14:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a strong case for ISKCON's opposition to evolutionary ideas, in which we should highlight the founder Swami Prabhupada's own words more than Cremo's. I am copying below a message with useful links that Gouranga(UK) had left on the talk page yesterday. Abecedare 16:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In terms of ISKCONs views in regards to evolution see the following links:

I'm assuming they'll be useful for referencing etc..., and as many are by Iskcon's own founder you can be sure they represent the canonical Hare Krishna viewpoint. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Thank you. These are excellent sources and I slipped them in. I and others have marked places where we need more references in the text, although I sometimes run the risk of having too many references and sources in my writing. If you have any ideas for some of these, I would be grateful. I have an idea for one or two of them, but we obviously need more.--Filll 16:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meera Nanda's report is not a valid reference.

Except for the name of Vedas or Vedic Science, I do not see even one reference to an actual Vedic texts in the report. This is a newspaper report and I do not think Wikipedia accepts it as a policy. Furthermore, the report indicates that there is a double conspiracy between the ISKCON people and the christian ID creationists to subvert the American education:

"If the Hare Krishnas hope to sneak into science classrooms through the door opened by I.D. creationists, the IDers use the Hare Krishnas to bolster their own image. `I.D.' is often accused of being a scientific-sounding cover for Christian creationism. The ID-ers conveniently use the support of Hare Krishnas to paint themselves in multicultural colours. Prominent I.D. theorists (Philip Johnson, Michael Behe) and some Catholic creationists have endorsed Vedic creationism. Any enemy of Charles Darwin is their friend - that seems to be the operating logic."

Why should this be put forward as Hinduism and even Vedic Science? What Meera Nanda argues is her own opinoin just as I or anybody may have. It is not correct to foist them as Hinduism.

Aupmanyav 11:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Meera Nanda is a Templeton scholar, has held prestigious positions at US universities, has published many articles about this in prominent journals, magazines etc. Now maybe she is nuts. Ok, so I produced one rebuttal to Meera Nanda. Find more and I will put them in.--Filll 14:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This comment is a non-sequitur (and not in any ways meant to question Meera Nanda's credibility), but I am shocked that she is at the Templeton Foundation, an organization that supports ID. To see how vehemently scientists oppose this foundation, watch Session 8 of this [meeting] Abecedare 16:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


I would agree. That is very interesting, that a foundation supporting ID would support a person strongly or seemingly opposed to ID. It might be worth noting? Maybe in a footnote. It is interesting, you are definitely correct. I appreciate someone who is CONSTRUCTIVE in helping to write something rather than purely destructive. Thank you.--Filll 16:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US State Department's "International Religious Freedom Report, 2003"

The U.S. State Department is not an uninterested research institution. The State Department may bring about reports which suit their policies. A State Department report cannot be taken as an impartial scholarly report. India also is a democratic country. There is editing of history by all parties. First it was the Indian National Congress when they were in power, then it was the Bharatiya Janata Party when they were in power, and again the Indian National Congress now that they are in power. This is politics and not scholarship, and we have to live with it. Aupmanyav 11:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For an outside observer, like one who is reading an encyclopedia, this is interesting to know. It might be pure nonsense, it might be pure politics. So give me a reference to something that rebuts it, in a reasonable source and we will put it in.--Filll 14:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, did not the State Department say that Iraq is on the verge of detonating an atom bomb and that it had chemical weapons. Do even the Americans believe it? Aupmanyav 15:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are comparing apples to oranges. You are claiming that the content of Indian school books is secret? Hidden from public view? Do you know anything of the material on which that judgement of WMD was based? I am the last person to defend the actions of the US on this issue; I was not even in favor of saving Kuwait 15 years ago in the first Gulf War. However, most of the public discourse in the US and other countries on these issues is completely ill-informed. This is not really the place to throw stones at opinions on Indian school book controversies. And the basis on which you are throwing stones is highly suspect. This is not just a US vs. India issue. The references (some of which were probably removed in fits of pique by Indian editors) were by INDIANS in Indian publications. I am not well educated enough to know the twists and turns of internal Indian politics. But I do know that there is some dissension. However, it might be impossible to discuss the dissension in an encyclopedia of this nature, unfortunately.--Filll 15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Point to me where did I claim that contents of Indian school books are secret? I said they are modified to suit the the interests of the party in power in India. The topic of discussion is neither the U.S. policy nor anyone's view on the first Gulf War, it is the report by U.S. Department of State. I said they are biased and are put up only to serve the U.S. policies, which is quite natural. Was there really any material on WMD in Iraq with the State Department? It was a total cook-up in their Washington kitchens. The Indian (Nanda) in the Indian publication is on a scholarship from a U.S. organisation with supports ID. Aupmanyav 07:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Like most things, it is better to not try to make things too simple. They are more complicated than that. The Discovery Institute lost its support from the Templeton Foundation because they were unhappy with the promotion of ID. And Nanda has been critical of ID. So things are more complicated than one might think at first. But WP is about verifiability, not truth.--Filll 12:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His Divinity, Dharm Chakrvarti Swami Prakashanand Saraswati

There are many gurus presently plying their trade in the U.S. and elsewhere, including Deepak Chopra. Maharshi Mahesh Yogi charges $500 for his training in Transcendental Meditation, 'Osho' Rajnish had 92 Rolls Royce cars. Well, good for them. But why should you take them as any authority in Hinduism. We have them in India in thousands. Hinduism has no popes. I think for myself. I respect one who would say something reasonable. It could be a Dandi Swami or a shoemaker. Have you heard of a saint of India, Ravi Dasa? He was a shoemaker. Once he was bathing the God's idol in the trough that he used to wash leather, people objected. He said his famous lines 'if a person's heart is clean, the water in a shoemakers trough changes to River Ganges' water'. It is said that the Ganges water started flowing out of his trough so copiously that the whole city was flooded, and the king had to come to him to request that it be stopped. So, who is this 'His Divinity, Dharma Chakravarti, Swami Prakashananda Saraswati'? I do not dispute that a lot of history and philosophy is there in the Indian scriptures written by great saints. Aupmanyav 12:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Saraswati is very influential in the US. Saraswati has some strong political connections apparently to groups in India. I do not assume that he speaks for HInduism, although he might believe he does. I do not know. There are thousands of sections of Christianity. I do not believe they speak for Christianity, although they might think they do. So what?--Filll 14:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Were the Saraswati quotes picked out from the book, "The true history and the religion of India", or from this website, where the author Ravi Ravishankar states in the prologue, "What follows is a fictional account of a tête-à-tête between Prakashanand Saraswati and a Hindutva activist; except for questions #6 and #7, Saraswati’s responses are taken almost verbatim from his book." (emphasis added) ? If the latter, clearly we have to remove the direct quotes, although we are free to describe Ravi Ravishankar's views, assuming the website can be considered a reliable source.
We should be careful not to take the same intellectual short-cuts that the ID/creationsist movement do. Abecedare 16:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right. I do not have a copy of his book but I can probably get one here in the library. We should reference the website where I obtained them which is of course the one you have shown. But I would like a copy of his book. He has published quite a few books so they should not be hard to find I would think. --Filll 16:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


Ok I made it more precise. This is what is helpful to write an article, rather than just remove things ones disagrees with. Otherwise, the article soon ceases to exist. It might be pure nonsense. These people might not have anything to do with Hinduism. 99.99999% of all Hindus might disagree with these people. Nevertheless, at least in the West, some people are drawing analogies. And they are making a case which does seem to have some merit. Now if there are those who claim otherwise and who answer these charges differently have good sources, then lets put those in too to make it NPOV.--Filll 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
In that case would you like to change the title to 'American neo-Hinduism and Creationism'. No problems with that. Aupmanyav 17:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is a good idea. I changed that section to that title as you suggested. Since the article is broader than just that topic (ISKCON for example is in many places besides the US) I will leave it as is. I also want to describe how creation accounts are not at all important in most Hindu circles, but obviously are in some, or semi-Hindus, or extremists etc (which is also true in Christianity).--Filll 17:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eternal Vedic Religion

The 'Eternal Vedic Religion' is basically composed of the rules of interpersonal and intersocial rules which sustain any society, 'Dharma', which as you know is not religion, but duty and righteous conduct. Those were not created by any one person or God as in Abrahamic religions. They are the result of human experience through the human history. Aupmanyav 12:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Lets get a source and put it in the article. Thanks.--Filll 17:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myths

As I indicated in my answers to your questions, myths are created for many reasons. It could be historical. The Vedas mention that Aditi gave birth to seven suns and the eighth was born unformed. B.G.Tilak opined that this carries the memories of the time when Aryans used to live in their homeland in the Arctic Circle where there were only seven months of sunshine and the sun failed in the eighth month. Some myths could have been created to show the sociology of the struggle of two contending beliefs. Krishna's fight with Indra is an example. Indra wanted to drown the people of Vraja in a deluge, but Krishna held a mountain (Govardhan) just by the tip of his little finger and saved the people of Vraja and their livestock from Indra's deluge. This could indicate the the victory of the indigenous belief over that of the Aryans. The commonly performed 'Satya Narain Katha' is another such example. Every time the characters in it spoke a lie, they were inundated with severe problems. The myth was created to inculcate a habit in the people not to resort to a lie, whatever the circumstances be. Myths have their own historical, sociological, and social usefulness. Only the ignorant will dismiss them. Aupmanyav 12:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not dismiss them. I am only talking about what is in these sources. If you have sources that dispute their views, then please produce them.--Filll 14:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This is an encylopedia. It describes myths. And I am not ignorant. But we cannot subscribe to pseudoscience or a POV to imply that it anything but a myth. I actually could care less what the myth says, because I don't follow, believe, or care about myths except solely in a historical context. The world changed 2000 years ago because of the myth of Jesus Christ, and so Christians developed a belief in Creationism. A few hundred years after that, the world change even more because of the myths of Islam, and there is certainly a Muslim creation myth. I'm sure the Hindu creation myths were a fundamental and critical part of the development of the cultures of Asia. But we cannot allow a myth, which is by its very nature, unprovable to be described as anything but that. We have taken sources to show that there are individuals throughout the world, whether they are Christians, Jews, Hindus or Muslims (and I'm sure many others, like Shinto) who attempt to force children to learn a creation myth, whether in the name of political correctness, misguided educators, or under the regimes of fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. All this article is doing is showing the HIndu Creation myth (which appears to be very complicated), and making certain the reader knows it is a myth and is opposed to the Scientific Fact of Evolution. It does not criticize the Hindu religion. It does not criticize the followers of the religion. that's it. Orangemarlin 16:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to the article, or as a Hindu to the creation myths (not singular but plural) mentioned in my scriptures. You should indicate which one you are talking about. And ISKCON is not the whole of hinduism, it is just a vee bit of it. As I have already mentioned, myths are for many reasons, sometimes if no correct answer is available, a new one can be made out to satisfy the curiosity of the questioners. Just like when we tell children that a stork brings a new baby, which is evidently not the truth. Aupmanyav 15:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand there are literally hundreds or many thousands of creation myths in the Vedas. I only have read of a couple, which are described, or were described in the main body of the article. They might have been removed; I have not checked for a while. If you have more sources and more information, then we can include documentation of the many many different Hindu creation myths, or at least provide a link.--Filll 19:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with Hinduism as a whole. This is a teeny tiny part of Hinduism or people are neoHindus or who follow some part of the Vedas whose belief system and methodology is somewhat parallel to the phenomenon we call creationism. Creationism exists in Islam (a subset I think but I do not know for sure). Creationism exists in Christianity (a small subset, maybe no more than 10% at best). And a group associated with Hinduism that some have compared to creationists (I have no idea how large this group is: 1%? 0.1% ? 0.001%?) And in spite of the fact that creationist groups might be very tiny, they still are interesting. So these articles are all about tiny minorities, that may or may not have a big influence in some given region (like Turkey for example, or I undestand Pakistan as well, and certainly the US to some extent).--Filll 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Explaining Hindu Dharma: A Guide for Teachers"

"It advises British teachers to introduce Hindu dharma as "just another name" for "eternal laws of nature" first discovered by Vedic seers, and subsequently confirmed by modern physics and biological sciences. After giving a false but incredibly smug account of mathematics, physics, astronomy, medicine and evolutionary theory contained in the Vedic texts, the Guide instructs the teachers to present the Vedic scriptures as "not just old religious books, but as books which contain many true scientific facts... these ancient scriptures of the Hindus can be treated as scientific texts" (emphasis added). All that modern science teaches us about the workings of nature can be found in the Vedas, and all that the Vedas teach about the nature of matter, god, and human beings is affirmed by modern science. There is no conflict, there are no contradictions. Modern science and the Vedas are simply "different names for the same truth".

The above is Meera Nanda's report on the book. If such a direction is given by the authorities in the British School System, then I do not know what they want to teach their students, and what they might be saying about Christian and Islamic books? Is it a ploy to make fun of the Indian books? I do not dispute that there might be some nuggests of truth about Mathematics (after all we arrived at Pythogorus' theorem before Pythogoras, are credited with creation of zero, found the value of pi to closer than what was possible at that time), physics (talked about atoms earlier than Leucippus and Democritus), astronomy (said that the earth was heliocentric earlier than Copernicus, found accurately about precission of equinoxes, were first to adjusted the lunar and solar calender satisfactorily), medicine (Sustruta is reported to be quite advanced with his surgical procedures and instruments, used many herbs from which modern science has extracted useful ingredients) in Indian scriptures. Do you know that Bhaskaracharya postulated the the six-month day at North Pole by his logical reasoning while being at home in India in the 12th century? Yes, there is no conflict between religion and science in Hinduism. Hindus do not take seriously what is not correct according to science. They generally ignore it (who has the time?), only the strident contest. Aupmanyav 12:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not deny that Indian civilization is long and rich. I was taught in school that Indians invented zero, but then I was reading a more detailed history and I realized that statement is very controversial, so now I do not know what to believe. However, if one looks on the internet, Nanda is not the only person who had some questions about this book. I included her only because I was lazy. There are many others. I do not know what I believe. It has caused some controversy nevertheless. And it is interesting and I believe relevant to this article. If you have sources that dispute Nanda or the other critics of this British teacher's book, then I would like them. It is obviously very popular with British teachers who are buying it and using it, appearently, as I note. --Filll 14:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some more links

Here are some links I found that may be useful in writing the article.

Hopefully these (and other) references will give some academic heft to the article, instead of presenting only an activist view or the (Hindu) editor's personal perspective (which well may be right, but needs to be referenced in order not to be original research). Abecedare 17:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I can see why you got the award for the Hinduism article. I am glad to have people being productive instead of destructive. We can flesh this out considerably so it can be better understood.--Filll 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have included the first two. It would be nice to have the original Hindu editorial, but I am not sure it is absolutely necessary. It would certainly make it more solid if we did, however. The last reference is excellent. I am reading it now and it is full of great insights. Most of it is a bit beyond this article, perhaps, but it is still a great bit of writing and one that treats this subject in the more careful sense that it deserves, rather than blind pronouncements of various kinds which are so common in this area. --Filll

Here is The Hindu editorial. Unfortunately, it mainly talks about the opposition in USA. IMO that illustrates how little the issue matters in India - but that is an opinion, not a citable fact. (FYI, despite its name The Hindu is a well-respected mainstream "secular" newspaper - compare with Christian Science Monitor) Abecedare 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a good summary, but not as useful for this article as the previous one. I added your 4th reference as well. I want to find where I saw the quote about the dinosaurs and fill that reference in as well.--Filll 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


A quote from "The cultures of creationism: Shifting boundaries of belief, knowledge and nationhood", Simon Coleman, Leslie Carlin in "The Cultures of Creationism: Anti-Evolution in English-Speaking Countries", Ed. Simon Coleman, Leslie Carlin, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2004. (page 3)

Cavanaugh (1983) noted that creationism was mainly found in the United Kingdom and its former colonies (Australia, Canada, South Africa, the United States and New Zealand), and to a lesser extent the foreign mission fields of these countries (India, Korea, Latin America, Nigeria). (see also Eve and Harold (1991): 5)

– Simon Coleman, Leslie Carlin

I haven't yet tracked down the references cited in the above quote, but will try to. Filll, I'll leave it to you to add to the article as you find appropriate. Abecedare 21:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a great quote and reference. I slipped it in the first paragraph, although I am not sure it is the best place for it. Is it referring to creationism among those converted to Christianity in India and other countries? Or the general opposition to evolution in these countries? It is slightly ambiguous. It is interesting anyway and sort of germane so I shoved it in the first paragraph. You are brilliant at finding references alright.--Filll 21:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
And here are the details of the 2 references cited in the above quote. They'll perhaps contain a better context for the quote:
  • Cavanaugh, Michael A. 1983. A Sociological Account of Scientific Creationism: Science, True Science, Pseudoscience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
  • Eve, Harold, "Creationist Movement in Modern America", Twayne Pub, 1990.
May be worth looking into, although the first may be hard to locate unless we write to Michael Cavanaugh who incidently is (was?) President, Institute on Religion in an Age of Science. His thesis has been cited innumerable times according to google. Abecedare 21:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Aside: Some of these references may be useful in other evolution/creation articles on wikipedia too. Feel free to filch them. :-) Abecedare 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

These are all good. I do help with the other evolution and creationism articles obviously, so these are all useful in those contexts. I think we want to try to give at least a rough picture of the "creationism" phenomenon and similar movements or or beliefs or biases that might exist anywhere, in any religion, in any culture, in any country.--Filll 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that is a noteworthy goal. After all, anyone reading about the evolution-creation debate has to at some point wonder how the debate pans out among other cultures/religions/regions ? This information, unfortunately, is not as easy to find as one would expect - so I think it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to consolidate such information from reliable sources. Having read about the issue extensively from a science/pseudoscience perspective I find it interesting to discover the sociological aspects - and thus educate myself while simultaneously editing this article. Abecedare 22:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes after a while, a person starts to ask about other cultures/societies/religions. Like I do not think we have a Shinto creationist article, but I do know it also is highly controversial, since Japanese are supposed to have descended directly from the Sun God or something. They claim they have no relation to the Koreans, but genetics show that they are in fact very closely related to the Koreans genetically. The Ainu and other indigenous peoples of the Japanese islands are dismissed, but archaeology seems to indicate clearly that they are the original dwellers on the islands. So they have their own creationist mythology which has some sort of pseudoscientific twist to it and also some social consequences.--Filll 22:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I would not consider any mythology to be pseudo-scientific, just as I won't consider Newton to be pseudo-scientific. Mythology, perhaps, represented the best explanation for the world that people saw around them at some point in history, just as Newton's gravitational laws were the best available model at one point. However interpreting myths literally (rather than allegorically, like the ghost in Hamlet) and believing them now is certainly pseudo-scientific! Abecedare 22:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


Agree completely. Even the later "mythological" "mystical" period of Newton that physicists make fun of was devoted to trying to turn reason and analysis to understand the Bible and find some evidence for its truth or veracity (and coming up a bit short I understand).--Filll 23:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I might add that the Sultan of Brunei is a major share-holder of the newspaper "The Hindu". Aupmanyav 07:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It might or might not be relevant. The Washington Times, the conservative newspaper in Washington DC, is owned by Rev. Moon. The New York Times allowed its reporter to go to jail for almost a year to protect the administration. Clinton was caught taking suitcases of cash from Chinese Intelligence operatives. Things get very murky very fast if you are looking for truth and unbiased. As I said before, WP is about verifiability, not truth.--Filll 12:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Personally I prefer the following lead:

Most Hindus accept or are ambivalent towards evolutionary theory, but some individuals and organizations associated with Hinduism advocate beliefs that are akin to creationism. Opposition to the theory of evolution is less prevalent and organized in Hinduism [1] than the creationist views in Christianity, Judaism or Islam. In general, Hindus do not treat the Hinduism's creation or origin myths literally and thus leave open the possibility of incorporating evolutionary concepts within the theology. Some Hindus are even able to find support or foreshadowing of evolutionary ideas in the Hindu religious scriptures, the Vedas.
An editorial in The Hindu, a national newspaper in India, ridiculed the efforts of creationists in the U.S. to promote "intelligent design", and called it an "over-the-top doctrine." The Hindu continued by quoting Clarence Darrow during the Scopes Trial: "Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding", and concluded "unfortunately, that is still true today."[2] An editorial published in the journal Current Science further noted that debate over evolution is not widespread in India; nevertheless the notion of evolution by natural selection "is a concept that sits uncomfortably in the public perception."[3]

because (1) the first sentence IMO summarizes the article (2) we should start with how Hinduism and creationism relate; not how Hinduism and Christianity etc relate to creationism (3) the first paragraph is mainly talking about the religion (Hinduism) and creationism; while in the second one gets into the demographics. What do others think ? Abecedare 02:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Whatever order people feel is reasonable is fine with me, as long as we meet these criteria:
  • we put the words Hinduism and creationism as close as possible to the start of the first sentence, in bold, and in that order
  • we describe at least roughly the topic of the article

Other than that, it is not so important. Just put your thinking caps on and see what you can come up with. --Filll 02:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me see. How about
A minority of individuals and organizations associated with Hinduism advocate beliefs that are akin to creationism, but most...--Filll

I generally like Abecedare's version, with a couple minor changes. I believe that saying 'some individuals and organizations' gives WP:Undue weight to what is really a few individuals and organizations that are not considered mainstream Hindu, or even Hindu, by some people. So I propose 'a few individuals and organizations'. I also agree that ISKCON is an exception, but not a 'notable' exception, because I don't think ISKCON is in step with mainstream or modern Hinduism. So I would delete 'notable'. I'll be bold and make the changes, using Abecedare's version with my minor changes. But I'm not opposed to further tweaking, with my concerns taken into account. ॐ Priyanath talk 06:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note on the nature of Hinduism

Filll, (I'm addressing this to you as I gather you're the main editor), I admire your courage in tackling this subject, but one of the first things you need to do is define Hinduism. It's not a religion in the sense of the religions deriving from the Abrahamic tradition - it's more like a fog, formless, undefinable, no centre and no edge. Hinduism didn't even exist until the British colonial overlords decided that the religions their subjects were practicing needed a name. The Indians themselves at that time - the early/mid 19th century - had no concept of religion as a sphere separate from any other sphere of life: it was just what they did. So the Brits looked into the sacred texts and came up with Hinduism. Most of what they called Hinduism - the Vedas, the Laws of Manu, etc etc - were quite unknown to the average villager, and still are today. The local priest would know them, but not the villager. What the villager knew was that he had to carry out his wedding in a certain way, dispose of his dead father's body in a certain manner, and call the priest in whenever necessary. This is still pretty much the way it is. So what is Hinduism, if not praxis? What doxis? These days, the book is the Gita. Not much about evolution or creation in that. But even the Gita is a middle-class book. I guess my point is, there is no divine text for Hinduism, and it's very dificult to define just what theology it has. Lotsa luck, but I think you're coming at this from a too-Western perpective. PiCo 11:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

PiCo, that is why I have Indian co-editors, and Indian references and Indian sources. I will point out that what you are describing is not too different from Christianity in many places, and in most places until maybe a couple of hundred years ago. And huge swaths of Christianity pay very little attention to Creation myths. "Christian Creationism" is a very strange obsession of a relatively small group in one country. So it is not "that" different or strange, frankly. What is different is that there are many more sacred texts in Hinduism. And although there are interpretation differences, this has not caused the same sorts of divisions in Hinduism as it has in Christianity.--Filll 13:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'd disagre with you on any of that. I guess my real point is that of course your Hindu co-editors are right - but as Hinduism is a religion without a delimited corpus of belief, every Hindu is right about Hinduism, no mater what he says. PiCo

And how is this different from Christianity? There are some who DECLARE themselves to be on the right path of course, but there seem to be many paths in most faiths.--Filll 13:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I suppose all christians (I am not talking about those who have embraced atheism) at least believe in God and Jesus. In Hinduism, like PiCo says, it can be 100 Gods, one God, or you yourself are God, and we do not find any problem with any of these theories. Personal belief is a person's own affair in Hinduism. Aupmanyav 17:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

True in a certain respect, although what each of these branches of Christianity, or Christian-like faiths conceive God and/or Jesus to be, and what is the nature of God and Jesus and relationship between God and Jesus gets very murky and complicated. There are more than 10,000 Christian sects, and some attempts to enumerate them go up well over 35,000. Some believe Jesus was a god. Some believe he was a man. Some believe he was a man who became a God. Some believe he was a God he became a man. Some believe he was both god and man. Some believe Jesus was 2 or 3 or more different people. Some doubt his existence at all. And a tremendous number of variations. And there are many overlap "Christian beliefs" or syncretic Christian hybrids that also assert that each individual is God, or part of God. And some forms of Catholicism and other forms of Christianity include many "subgod"-like supernatural figures such as the Virgin Mary and thousands of saints and angels and archangels and demigods and demons and so on. So often Christians try to portray their faith as quite simple, but if one examines it and all its sects in detail, it gets more complicated. The difference that I see is that there is really only a small handful of religious texts in Christianity. Most agree that the central 66 books of the KJV are sacred (although how sacred and what exactly to pick and choose out of those 66 books, and how to translate and interpret the passages, particularly the contradictory passages, is a matter of huge dispute.) However, there are hundreds of other texts which might or might not be viewed as sacred by one or more sects. The Catholics have a different set than the Orthodox who have a different set than the Protestants, who have a different set than the Mormons. So we have the collections of texts called the apocrypha and the pseudopigraphia and many many other texts in addition to the "canonical" 66 (not all 66 of which all sects agree with, however). If I understand correctly, Hinduism has literallly at least an order of magnitude more sacred texts than Christianity does.--Filll 19:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV required

This article is about hinduism theory of creation and had hoped to see that, instead all i see is unrelated material. I propose to make a draft version with good references from shruti texts as well as puranas. --SV 17:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the article you are looking for is Creation_within_belief_systems#Hindu. This article specifically deals with Hinduism's relationship with Creationism. Abecedare 18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. This is about creationism not about creation. A small but subtle and important difference. If you look at Creation_within_belief_systems#Hindu and find it inadequate, I would encourage you to expand it, or even to write a separate longer article if need be, say on Hindu creation or Hindu concepts of creation or Hindu creation accounts or something like that. I think it would be very worthwhile and extremely interesting.--Filll 19:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to understand - By hinduism and creationism - does it mean the clash between literal interpretation of hindu scriptures and evolution theory? i dont understand what this article's purpose is? - SV 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

filll thanks for your suggestion, i will try to get something going on Hindu concepts of creation -- SV 19:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Opposition to the theory of evolution is less prevalent and organized in Hinduism'

Fill, the reason for this is that very few care other than the Hare Krishnas, who do not count for much in Hinduism. Most people with modern education follow the modern theories. What is important in Hinduism is 'dharma' (social conduct). A belief in creationism as mentioned variously in the scriptures is not important for Hinduism. Christians and muslims have just one book and one person who established them. Not going by the word is considered blasphemy. Hinduism has hundreds of books, no person who established it, and chartering a new path is not considered a crime in Hinduism. Aupmanyav 17:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


I believe that the article did say this, or at least used to. I have not checked recently however and it might very well have been removed or hacked up since this article seems to offend so many. I do not think it is valuable for me to defend it since there are so many Hindus here and only one of me and I would very quickly be overwhelmed. However, in the interests of mutual understanding, permit me to clarify a few things. Creation or origin accounts are only important in one minor branch of Christianity (I cannot speak for Islam). And there are in fact multiple books and multiple versions of the bible in Christianity-not as many as Hinduism perhaps, but in the hundreds for sure-all interpreted differently by different sects. This is how there come to be several tens of thousands of sects of Christianity. And it is true that some branches of Christianity will charge others with blasphemy for not agreeing with them, but again this is only true of a small segment. The difficulty rests in the rather visible and vocal minority causing trouble. I suspect similar things might be true of Islam as well.--Filll 17:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Hinduism and Creation

Some general thoughts I'd like to share on this article, which I feel could be incorporated somewhere:

Obviously Hinduism is very diverse so there is no one specific take on 'creationism', however the majority of Hindu traditions would believe that there is a divine 'plan', order, or structure to the universe. With basic beliefs such as reincarnation and karma (especially relevant in this case), the idea that events in our earthly existence happen in a random or chaotic way without any higher intelligence behind them is arguably against the very core of Hindu belief. For example, how could karma ever exist in a world without a divine order?

I don't see this as being inherently against the idea of evolution per se. But it is most definitely in opposition with any theory which promotes evolution as a result of random or chaotic events which occur without the interaction of a supreme controller (Ishvara) at least as an initiator to the process.

Just to say that 'not all Hindus take the stories in the Vedas and Puranas literally' doesn't really cover it all in my opinion. If evolution is a fact then according to Hinduism it at least has to occur by design rather than by chance. How could chance be factored into a Hindu worldview wherein, to quote Gandhi: "not a blade of grass grows or moves without His will" (speaking of God)?

To this effect I'm going to make some changes to the current introduction, please discuss below if any of them seem out of place or incorrect. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using newspapers in India as sources

As managing editor of Hindism Today, I closely follow the Indian press. It would be an error to consider either The Hindu newspaper or Frontline magazine as unbiased sources. Both are Marxist in orientation, and consitently anti-Hindu, and anti-religion, in editorial stance. I don't see how articles in either can be considered as neutral evidence for the points trying to be made in this article. Arumugaswami 03:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The article itself must be NPOV, not the sources.--Filll 18:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Yup, have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources - there are sources considered so biased they are unreliable, however neutrality isn't required. Addhoc 18:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Hindu creation accounts and evolution" section

I don't consider this section is necessary - it would be the equivalet of explaining the concept of genesis in the other creationistic articles - if readers aren't familiar with Hinduism or the Vedas they could read the respective articles. Addhoc 08:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems relevant, at least in a summary format, with links to a main article where the subject could be explored in detail. I agree we shouldn't explore it in any great depth in this article. Regards Gouranga(UK) 07:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)