Talk:History of Hinduism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of Hinduism was the Hinduism Collaboration of the week for the week starting on 13 June 2006.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.

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

The goal is to make it like the History of Buddhism article. --Dangerous-Boy

[edit] NPOV dispute: Hinduism and the rise of Buddhism

Bodhidhamma and HKelkar agree to disagree on this setion. Both have provided their POV as well as other users have provided their POV.

According to HKelkar the references he has provided to proove authenticity, credibility of this section is clear enough to accept that Buddha was an avatara reincarnation of Vishnu.

According to Bodhidhamma these references are not valid enough to proove it. Bodhidhamma follows 1. perception, 2. inference and 3. valid testimony to accept any concept/belief/fact/philosophy. According to this We have different perception, hence tried to infer from the sources provided by HKelkar . Which accrding to Bodhidhamma does not logically [A=B, B=C hence A=C] establish link to the provide any proof to the claim that Buddha was an Avatara of Vishnu which demands valid testimony

Hence need NPOV.

Also no one has provided any information about other two sentences, hence need NPOV.

1. A substantial Buddhist community that rivalled the Hindus would remain in Pakistan until the Islamic conquests. Please refer WP:NOR. 2. With the ascent of the Gupta Dynasty, many Buddhists were returned to the Hindu fold in India Please refer Shunga Empire WP:NOR.

Hence I would request neutral party to get involved and provide their opinion. Until then, my request, NPOV status should be maintained.--Bodhidhamma 18:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhist history would be axed from this page

"According to some Hindu beliefs Buddha was the ninth Avatara of Vishnu" How could practicing budhhist person's beliefs are less important than those who are not buddhist?

As I have described in following thread please come up with valid references or delete this section. Do not use weasel words. Every sentence and word you provide in any encyclopedia/wikipedia has to be validated/prooven in case there is a dispute please refer weasel verifiable. Again I use this path to proov my POV, perception,inference and valid testimony and expect other to follows the same. No hypocrisy please.

Buddha is discussed as an avatar of vishnu in Agni Purana, Varaha Purana, Bhagavata Purana, , Garuda Purana, Matsya Purana. So, i am removing your objection for the moment from the article.nids (♂) 23:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nidhi- again I am not talking about your purana's I respect your puranas cause you believe in it even though I do not believe it. This is 21st century. Science believes in perception,inference and valid testimony. Please read the questions properly and try to answer them. If you do not understand/have knowledge keep yourself away. This is wikipedia and everyone has a right to present their views. Please site the reference if you have about Buddha Purana and the document should be validated by buddhist scolars. --Bodhidhamma 01:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please learn to distinguish between belief and fact. The Buddha/Vishnu thing is listed in the article as a point of written scripture. None of us are making any statements about actual truth here. The truth is that it is written in Pauranic scripture.Belief is not the issue here at all.Hkelkar 01:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please understand other POV. If I say our community believes in something contradictory to the religion you follow, whos belief would have more credibility? If buddhist believe that Buddha wasnt an avatara of vishnu, how can you publish others views as beliefs who do not even practice that religion? Has buddha ever said in any documents that he is an avatara of Vishnu? Has any Buddhist monk ever wrote that Buddha was Avatara of vishnu? then how it matters what others who does not follow that religion say? (Yes, I have a "birth certificate" from village office. Stupid arugument !!!::All this is irrelevant. We are not talking about Buddhism here but it's connection with Hinduism. IF you have any documented evidence that Buddha/Vishnu connection is disputed then plz cite. Until then, the fact remains that the Puranas say that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu and it is stated as such. Removal of this is, therefore, a vandalism of sourced edit. We are not here to debate theology but report the facts.Hkelkar 01:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone knows Budha has born to Hindu parents. So, what evidence you need to understand "Budhist History" is part of "Hindu History".

The idea of the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu is hinted at in the Buddhist texts as I understand it. The Buddha is described as a "Maha-Purusha" in the Digha Nikaya, in Pali: Lakkhana Sutta and here the Buddha is described as having the 32 signs of a great man or maha-purusha. In other suttas, it is said that he is a maha-purusa. The idea of the Mahapurusha is found in the Vedas in the Purusha sukta, which is sang as a paean to Vishnu.

In Buddhism, the Purusha idea is similar to the Vedic one found in the Purusha Sukta. An example is in the Anupada Sutta, where Buddha calls Sariputra, his true son born of his speech.

The idea of Buddha not only as a "Mahapurusha" but as Vishnu is also found in Buddhist texts like the Buddha Charita by Ashvaghosha where Siddharta's wife, Yashodhara is called in another name for Laxmi or the Goddess of wealth, who is generally considered the consort of Vishnu.

The Buddha is shown as superior to Brahma the creator and shown bowing down to him in Buddhist scriptures, only Vishnu and Shiva are considered superior beings. Also, the Buddha's emphasis on the characteristic of 'truth guna' , sat, as amongst all deities, only Vishnu is 'sat' truth and is wholly identified with teaching and protecting the Dharma, sharana too is identified with the Buddha and is a characteristic of Vishnu in Vedic tradition. It is also because of this that Buddhism had such a huge following in India so quickly.

It is one of the great tragedies of Indian history that Buddhism fizzled out in India because Buddhists and Hindus are cousins really, but that's how it is now...

Actually, I went to Korea once about 5 years ago and talked to many Buddhists in Seoul. Most of the monks there are aware of these origins of Buddha/Vishnu (they refer to Vishnu simply as "deva").Hkelkar 02:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

HKelkar,I appreciate your efforts. But I feel, you are contridicting with your own words. Are you saying it is a hindu belief or "Fact". Also I am saying that I never found any document to clearly describe Buddha as Vishnu's avatara. All the message you have written is irrelevant as it is still unable to describe how buddha can be called Visnhu's Avatara? There is no documentation which specifically says "Buddha is an Avatara of Vishnu". For example Garuda purana can be pointed as a document describing Garuda as an avatara of Vishnu. Again refernce to purusha theory you are describing here is completely wrong. Please read sankhya philosophy to understand what "Purusha" means. Sankhya philosophy does not believe in GOD or the extreme creator/destroyer. The purusha you are talking about in reference to Buddha is actually reffered to Kapila's concept of purusha (Tejas, Rajas and Tamas.) In Kapila's concept Rajas is inteprrted as Purusha which is basically element with trishna causing the universe to go in a dynamic from its static state and not Vishnu or Shankara or Brahma. Those are vedic interpritations of Purusha and not buddhist. --Bodhidhamma 13:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You are rehashing old arguments that have been adequately refuted. Try to think of some new ones.Hkelkar 13:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. HKelkar, If you cannot proove it please remove those comments from the article. Dont continue with irrelavent arguments. There is no such proof that Buddha can be called as Vishnu hence This line should go so the other lines which are not possible to validate. Give proper reference insted of vadic jargon. Again, I follow this path perception,inference and valid testimony to validate any concept. If it does not fit in it, the concept should be scrapped

We had our own perception, we tried to infer we have difference in opinion which demands valid testimony since niether you nor I have any document which specifially mentions Buddha as an avatara, this line remains baseless hence it should be axed. --Bodhidhamma 13:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Might want to read WP:SNOW.Hkelkar 13:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Arguing with you is clearly a waste of my time.Bottom line is that any vandalism of this article and a joint RfA will be filed against the vandal.Hkelkar 13:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Again you are accusing and threatening others. Please do not continue with your atocratic tactics. Please accept that, we have difference in opinion, we agree to disagree. I would get third party involved and try to resolve this discussion in peaceful manners. As I said people get angry when they do not have answer and those who do not have answers are mostly hypocrites --Bodhidhamma 14:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Buddha is mentioned in many hindu scriptures as an avatara of Lord Vishnu (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_as_an_Avatara_of_Vishnu, Buddha in Puranic Scripture). Do not forget to see the references at the bottom. Not only that, Buddha is reported as an avatara of Lord Vishnu even in buddhist scriptures. I will try to get you the references as soon as possible. Please also note that there is a Wiki policy that not everything has to have sources if the matter is common knowledge. You must remember that most hindus are not Buddha-haters but Buddha-lovers, like Gandhi, Radhakrishnan, and a nobody like myself. How does it matter if some medeaval puranas mention him as an anti-avatara. Please also tell me why what hindus think about Buddha has to be validated by Buddhist scholars? Aupmanyav 17:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Rama is considered as an avatara of Buddha in Laos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pra_Lak_Pra_Lam). Aupmanyav 11:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please give explnation why History of buddhism should be part of Histoy of Hinduism?

I have deleted the part related to buddhism as it is not part of history of Hiduism. Please do not delete the thread without explaning. Please provide references. Mr. Kelkar. Please come forward with your explanations before deleting anything. Give me one Hidu Kings name who ruled the region you are saying part of Hindu(?) Kingdom? The regions you are showing were ruled by either Buddhist Kings or Jain Kings. Shuga was the only Brahmin King, you will find more information at Shuga Dynasty.

Unless you define "Who the Hindu is?" this article is useless and meaning less.

May I use Mr Kelkar's words here?

This article is, as it stands, complete hatemongering nonsense. It is full of unsourced rubbish and weasel words. I am warning all parties that if they persist in using wikipedia as a soapbox to express false views I will bring admins into this matter and file a full request for arbitration. Please cooperate to build an objective and useful article that presents the facts without POV

Thanks

The history of Hinduism and Buddhism in India are inextricably intertwined. One cannot mention one without mentioning the other. Buddhism evolved from Hinduism in India into a separate religion.If you remove pertinent information any further it will be vandalism and treated accordingly. Plus, I also ask Dhammafriend here to look at WP:Sockpuppetry again.Hkelkar 13:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Kelkar, Unless you come up with valid, credible references I would not allow you to publish Histoy of Buddhism as a Part OF history of Hinduism. Those are two diffrent religions. Please give explanation. Why do you think Buddha was Vishnu's avatara? Is there any proof? Is there any document to support your claim?

About DhammaFriend. We are Dhamma Brothers one lives in Germany and other in USA. If it pleases you please go forward and complain to Wikipedia. But I will not allow you to provide false information to the world.

And I will get you censured for putterring garbage like your meatpuppet Dhammafriend.

As for definition of a Hindu, look at Hindu.Hkelkar 13:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That definition is incomplete and it is always difficult to address somebody as Hindu. Can you explain what is Shiva Lingam in more details ? Truthlover 17:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Kelkar. Please stop threatening others. What you can do, others also can do with you. That is not what I want to proove.

Please come up with valid references before you add Buddist Histoy to Hindu History. Unless you provide proofs I will not allow you to publish wrong information.

Hkelkar you are doing personal attacks agains others. As well as be polite in your language. Don't use always threatening words. Truthlover 17:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The central concepts of Buddhism such as Nirvana, Moksha, cycle of births etc. were adapted from Hinduism for the common masses by Gautama Buddha. Buddhism's history MUST be included, as its very creation was due to a rennaissance in the thought of Buddha. He rejected the absolute authority of the priests and condemmned their ill-practices.

Just as Protestantism must be mentioned in the history of Christianity, so must Buddhism be mentioned in the history of Hinduism. IAF

But I have objections to these sentences which does not have any credible evidence/proofs/references

1. "According to some Hindu beliefs Buddha was the ninth Avatara of Vishnu."

On what basis you are saying this? Why Mahavira (Jain founder) is not considered Avatara? What is the criteria to declare a person an avatara.? There are no supporting documents to claim that Buddha was an avatara of Vishnu? Niether He nor any of the monks ever wrote that. Milinda's Prashna' is an authorative document in these matters. All buddist refer to this document.

2. "With the ascent of the Gupta Dynasty, many Buddhists were returned to the Hindu fold in India, as Hindus adopted many of the teachings of the Buddha such as non-violence to all life, vegetarianism and proper treatment of fellow men." This sentense to completely wrong/fabricated. Please read Sunga Empirefor reference. Buddhist did not return but they were made to do so by killing/torturing/burning the monks.

3. "A substantial Buddhist community that rivalled the Hindus would remain in Pakistan until the Islamic conquests. Now this sentnce is again fabricated. How one can one claim that without specific data? On what basis this claim is made. What about buddhist those are in laddakh? Those were in deccan/orissa?

For all these reasons I would like to get this paragraph out of this page. This is totally against the thoughts the rising Buddhist Movement in India.

We will not deny you publishing information related to buddhism but that has to be validated/prooved, Based upon perception,inference and valid testimony, A Buddhist way accepting/denying any philosphy/history.--Bodhidhamma 13:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

On what basis you are saying this? Why Mahavira (Jain founder) is not considered Avatara? What is the criteria to declare a person an avatara.? There are no supporting documents to claim that Buddha was an avatara of Vishnu? Niether He nor any of the monks ever wrote that.

Boddhidhamma you are stuck at the avatara point. For the time-being just remove it from your mind. Now what about Nirvana, Moksha, and Cycles of birth ? You will surely agree that these ideas existed before Gautama Buddha, and therin lies the reason why Buddhism must be included in the History of Hinduism. IAF

IAF. I am not stuck at that point. I like to get every point resolved one by one. If you start arguing on each and every point at the same time you cannt not have valuable conversation and turns out to be nonsence. This is what I follow: Identify the disputed section. Divide the section in different separable points and argue every point one by one by referncing previous points and reliable supporintg resource to that point.:-) --Bodhidhamma 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It was really unfortunate that Mahavira was not taken as an avatara of Lord Vishnu (actually perhaps being the elder contemporary of Buddha, he should have been taken in as the ninth avatara and Buddha the tenth, in that way people would not have to wait for Kalki). I hope future puranas take care of that (after all puranas have been written in various times by various people). I also hope that the later puranas would also consider the strong candidature of Guru Nanak, Sant Kabir, and Mahatma Gandhi. It is something like Nobel Prize, Einstein came out with the theory of Special Relativity in 1905, but that was recognized in 1921. And, plese note that their are various kinds of avataras, there are amshavataras and leela avataras, etc. And if you go by 'advaita', all humans, all animals, all vegetation, all stones, are avataras of the universal substrate, the Brahman, you too are (Tat twam asi). No one can have any claim on how hindus consider their religion. We would not need any approval from Buddhist, Jain, or Sikh jathedars. That is solely our business. We are not forcing you to anything. Aupmanyav 05:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reign of Shivaji is really off-topic

I like Shivaji as much as the next fellow, but what's the relevance here? The section Reign of Shivaji never even mentions Hinduism. Can someone edit to specify the connection to the History of Hinduism? Otherwise, this section should be deleted. --Nemonoman 23:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WIthout him, Hinduism would probably would have become like zohorastism in India and today India would be and Islamic republic. --Dangerous-Boy 00:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If you believe this speculation, then you should include it in order to clarify the reason for including the topic at all. Frankly, I think your speculation is very doubtful. Hinduism had survived for several centuries before Shivaji, survived throughout India, including areas where Shivaji had no direct influence, survived greater oppression (in my view) from Christian invaders.

Your comments seem to suggest that Hinduism is a very fragile faith, easily overwhelmed by Islam. Based on its history as I understand it, the opposite is the case. Hinduism influenced Indian Islam signficantly.

Further (despite attempts to revise his history), Shivaji's government was very inclusive and ecumenical.

Shivaji was a great hero, and of incalculable importance to Indian history...but this point, no one has established his relevance to this article. Surely you can come up with more reason for him to be included than 'Hinduism would probably have become like zohorastism'. --Nemonoman 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said Hinduism was fragile. Shivanji was fighting Aurangzeb. He was a hardcore muslim. The muslim rulers before him were much more liberal. IF there was no shivanji, there still would have been fight for Hinduism's survival because utlimately Hinduism have become like zohoarastinism in iran. I just haven't gotten around to write the stuff about him. I mostly emulated the article around the buddhism one. --Dangerous-Boy 19:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been studying the interactions of Shivaji and Aurangzeb for more than 22 years, and my novel based loosely on the early years of that conflict comes out next year [Title and publisher removed, described below by Dangerous Boy as offensive self-promotion]. So I'm fairly familiar with the period.

You are voicing a point of view that is rather fashionable these days. It's my considered view, and the view of many historians, that there was a strong political component to Aurangzeb's actions, and that the most repressive of his activities was focussed on stifling Shivaji's rebellion, not to stamping out Hinduism. Hinduism thrived in other parts of Aurangzeb's empire, and his main allies were Hindu.

I would suggest that without some SPECIFIC tie in, the Shivaji section is IRRELEVANT to the history of Hinduism.

Or it is good enough at the most for a small paragraph in the article. Shivaji fought with Aurangazeb for 22 years out of the Hindu history of something like 9000 years (remember, Mehrgarh with possible Harappan and Hindu culture in Baluchistan). We should not loose perspective. Aupmanyav 13:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The above mentioned topic "Reign of Shivaji" needs either more information to be added in or should be completely removed. As discussed it needs mention of how Shivaji stimulated the unity of Hindus for the fight against Muslim Mughals. It also needs a perspective into Shivaji's life- being a devout worshipper of Shiva and also on how he saved a Muslim princess' life. --Venkgo 09:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That I suppose belongs to the individual page on Shivaji. Though as a hindu, Shivaji and Pratap are very important to us. Aupmanyav 12:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval Section needs rework

My comments about Shivaji above apply also to the "Islamic Invasion" and "Goa Inquisition" sections.

The "Islamic Invasion" describes primarily the spread of ISLAM in the subcontinent. The relevance of this passage to Hinduism is not clear.

The link to Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them is ham-handed and suggests extreme POV. That book's scholarship is extremely doubtful and not accepted by most mainstream scholars.

There are PLENTY of specific, highly documented examples of Hindu temple destruction by Aurangzeb and other Mughals, however. If that's what you want the section to be about, use THOSE examples.

Also what is the point of the GOA INQUISTION section as relates to Hindu History? It's got its own article, which should probably be referenced. In the 3000+ year history of Hinduism, it's a footnote at best.

Except for the Bhakti movement, did nothing notable happen between 13th and 20th Centuries in the History of Hinduism??

Do you really need a Westerner to write this section? Holy cow! --Nemonoman 20:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I saw what you did on the Aurangzeb and most people seemed to be disagreeing with. I don't know whether you're trying to start trouble of some kind. The goa inguistion is important. Most Hindus don't know anything about it. Also wikipedia is not about promoting your book. please refrain from that. Also, many people would disagree with about shivanji's role in Hinduism. I don't think we need a westerner to write this section since many of us are westerners.--Dangerous-Boy 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks. I haven't been disinvited to participate so insultingly before. Makes me feel like a real Wikipedian.

I saw what you did on the Aurangzeb and most people seemed to be disagreeing with.

Please specify your concerns. On my talk page please, or the Aurangzeb talk page, since I will no longer be watching this page.

I might point out the numerous concerns about your own edits as seen on your talk page.

If you think the History of Hinduism is the place to promote your agenda, so be it. I assumed that some scholarship might be helpful, but you clearly prefer none. Thanks for your invitation to butt out, which I accept. I'm outty. Have a good time. PS at some point, you might want to consider investing in a book on basic English grammar. --Nemonoman 22:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

'Except for the Bhakti movement, did nothing notable happen between 13th and 20th Centuries in the History of Hinduism?': Why should you belittle Bhakti movement in this way, if not only in ignorance. Bhakti movement was not something in a vaccum, it had its philosophy and criticism (tarka - I suppose there were great proponents of 'tarka' in Bengal). I follow 'gnana' but it would not be 'gnana' to dismiss Bhakti in this way. Aupmanyav 08:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Searching for Hinduism roots and dating Vedas and Rama

Hinduism is a direct descendant of the Vedic Religion as well as that of the other indigenous religious beliefs. The Vedas date to 6000 BC (B.G.Tilak - Aditi Period). Harappan civilization (if it was Hinduism) is eqally old (Mehrgarh in Balochistan dates from 7000 BC). We cannot date the story of Rama which is not Aryan but from indigenous religious beliefs in any way that I know of. The tradition, most probably, was oral before being put in Sanskrit form by Valmiki. Aupmanyav 11:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

... putting the composition of the Vedas 8000 years ago means that the ultimate ancestor of Vedic Sanskrit, Proto-Indo-European, would have to have been spoken about 11,000 - 12,000 years ago. Which is basically impossible - Proto-Indo-European contains pretty solid reconstructions for words such as "wheel", and others related to metal work. These innovations did not occur until much much later. --Krsont 21:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That is true. I do not find any break in either the Aryan or the Hindu traditions though many successive changes are present. The Aryan tradition may belong to last inter-glacial period (Avesta mentions a deluge by snow). It was an oral tradition and there were additions throughout the ages, the language and location changed repeatedly, till the time RigVeda was codified, location and language then changed again. Nothing much can be said about the indigenous Hindu tradition till now. Basically I believe both to be aboriginal traditions, like those of the Australian aboriginals. Would you hesitate to date the Australian tradition to be more than 10,000 years old? Then, why this hesitation in case of Aryans or Hindus? Why should these traditions date just from 1500 B.C.? After all, Homo Sapiens Sapiens came to India more than 60-70,000 years ago. Aupmanyav 08:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

most Indians are basically descendents of the people who settled India 60,000 years ago, just as the Australian Aboriginals are basically the descendents of the people who settled Australia 70,000 years ago, and most Europeans are basically the descendents of the people who settled Europe 50,000 years ago. You can discuss this at human migration or mtDNA. This has nothing to do with texts, language, traditions or Hinduism. Simply nothing. So why burden this talkpage with such offtopic tangents. dab (ᛏ) 12:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism is the belief and culture of the descendants of those people. Aupmanyav 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

of some of their descendants. a very silly point. it is also the belief of some of the descendants of Homo habilis, of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and of Archaeothyris. What does this have to do with Hinduism again? dab (ᛏ) 14:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism, just Vedic?

I have been able to change (with peoples' consent) information on Hindu and Hinduism page which says that Hinduism derives only from the Vedas. Actually Hinduism is the belief of many traditions of people in India in which the Aryan tradition also got assimilated. Aryans perhaps started coming to India before 3000 B.C. after their initial contact with Indian people (Hindus) in Uttarapatha (Central Asia). The Madras of Punjab came from Uttar Madra and Kauravas came from Uttar Kuru (please find information on relevant Wiki pages). These Aryans assimilated completely with the Indian people and no pure blue blood Aryan is to be found now. So Aryan heritage is just one part of the Hindu mix and not the whole of it. Hinduism is not just Vedic, it is Tamil, Harappan, Sindhi, Bengali, Marathi, Kannada, etc. also. Hindus and assimilated Aryans demoted the Aryans Gods and worship Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti today. Thanks Aupmanyav 13:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead.--D-Boy 19:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem with Hindu pages are the Neo-Aryans. Hinduism is Aryan, Aryans were Indians, Hinduism is monism. Hinduism is more than what you think, and Aryans were more than what you think, India is more than what Aryans were. Please come out of your narrow view points and let us make Hinduism pages without bias, informative and a delight to read. Aupmanyav 04:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

O_O? Are you talking to me?--D-Boy 07:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you a Neo-Aryan? Well, in general, not particularly to you. You accepted my suggestion for a change, you do not seem to be a Neo-Aryan. Regards. Aupmanyav 12:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

what steaming, undiluted gibberish. dab (ᛏ) 12:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Steaming, undiluted gibberish! I was trying to turn away people from their Aryan fixation. BTW, would you care to reply to some points I have raised in talk:Vedas, or you would also give the standard answer, 'not accepted by most scholars, monority view'? I humbly want to ask if it is OK not to consider facts and dismiss them summarily as minority views, no progress can be made this way. Aupmanyav 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't ascribe to Hinduism being purely Aryan. Sure Aryan ideas formed the core and even the led the social set up while they dominated the ganges but after that I beleive it got really transformed in the gangetic plains with the rise of the Buddhist political power and influence etc. Add to this the syncretism and ideas and philosphies that flowed in across the greco and persian realms past the decline of the power of the north and the transfer of power from the gangetic plains to the southern tips and the fading of buddhism and onto islamic rules and british political policies etc etc. Again these were long historically processes spanning centuries not any overnight action and lacking a single source or even central political authorities like the pope or the caliphs I am not even sure it began to crystallize until the British tried to organize it to understand it. That all being said, this is Wikipedia and that means No original research we can only source information from sources that have actually been peer reviewed and accepted by the majority view of academia or in a pinch due to not too much information being available I suppose be reasonably reviewed or authentically sourced, since majority view may not be formed on something that has not been heavily exposed as yet to the rigors of analysis so we walk a fine line here.--Tigeroo 14:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned Aryans who did affect Hinduism greatly; and Buddhists, Greeks, Persians, Islam, and British, who had a minimal affect on Hinduism; but you did not mention the bulk of people residing in India before the Aryans with their myriad Gods and Goddesses including Shiva, Vishnu, and Shakti; who are at the core of Hinduism. Aupmanyav 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"So Aryan heritage is just one part of the Hindu mix and not the whole of it. Hinduism is not just Vedic, it is Tamil, Harappan, Sindhi, Bengali, Marathi, Kannada, etc. also."

--- This is one of the most ridiculuos statements I have read. What do you mean by Vedic ? What do you mean it is Marathi, Sindhi, Bengali, etc. Marathi culture, Bangla culture and other cultures developed from Aryan-Vedic cultures only. How can there be a developed culture before a parent culture and how can it be different from it. I guess some Hindutvavadis are trying extremely hard to portray Hinduism as monolithic religion which it is not, and Hindu people as a single race, which they are certainly NOT. It is not that there are people of only two origin here viz. Indo-Aryans and Dravidians. No, it is not. There are other different origins as well, in large numbers, esp. Indo-Scythians in Rajputs and Jats, Mongoloids in Assamese and Bengali, White Huns in Gujaratis, Caucasians in general, Iranian/Nurestani as well. So my request to certain fanatics is - Don't tamper with history for your own purposes.

--N R S^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 07:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't tamper with history for your own purposes. Any evidence?--^Babub→Talk 11:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But my friend, this is exactly what I am trying to portray that Vedic thought was not the only parent. You always need two. What about some 90% of the people who lived in Southern and Eastern parts of India? Do you mean to say that today's Hinduism has no influence of their beliefs? What about Shiva, Shakti, and Vishnu who are only cursorily mentioned in Vedas (most probably later interpolations) but make the major Gods today in Hinduism. The people that make the population of India are of many origins, we know about Aryans, Scythians, Gurjaras, Ahirs, various Rajput clans, Greeks, Parthians, Pahlavas, Mongols, Kushans, and Huns. These people accepted Hinduism and settled in India. There may be many more before them who might have come to India but we do not know them as yet. And who says that Hinduism is a monolithic religion, it has many colours, polytheists, dualists, monists, karmakandis, and even Atheists (like me). (No, I am not looking for barnstars) Aupmanyav 14:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who are Dravidians?

I have been asking this question in Hindu/Hinduism pages. Would anyone please let me know who are the people who may be termed as Dravidians, who called them dravidians. and where are they referred to in history (not by Christian missionaries or followers of Shri B. R. Ambedkar). Remember Wikipedia does not want opinions but proof. Aupmanyav 16:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

a lot south indians.--D-Boy 18:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A very general answer not satisfying Wiki requirements. Padmapuran mentions Dakshina and Dravidas separately (see talk:Hindu). Aupmanyav 01:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

simple. Dravidians are speakers of Dravidian languages. dab (ᛏ) 20:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dravidians are the South Indians of India from Tamil-Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. They are believed to be the direct descendents of the Indus-valley peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAF (talk • contribs)

Historically, they are the early inhabitants of India who were pushed southward during the Aryan migration. Gizza^Chat ^© 12:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you say that Indus Valley people were these dravidians, whose guess? Panchadravids include Gurjaras and Maharashtrians? Aupmanyav 02:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Aryan or Dravidian origin dispute

Can we get over this fixation and dispute about Aryan or Dravidian culture ? Hinduism is parcticed mainly in India and all those people who practice it outside India today have Indian lineage. Ther is no trace so far of practice of Hindu philosophy in any of the excavations in any part of the world. There are some similarities in practice of variety of gods (Greek mythology) or Fire worship (Zorashtrian)in some other part of the world and this can be just coincidence and independantly developed. Two different societiies can independantly develop such simple practices. I think we need to concentrate on other evidences, mostly drawn from the vedas and puranas themselves. The vedas / scriptures do not talk about Aryan or Dravidian culture. Puranas do talk about Jamboo Dweepam (Asia) and Bharatha Varsham, other similar divisions of continent of Asia and also other 6 continents. There would have been mention, in cse there were movement of people from to another. There is also mention that Manu of the present Manwanthara was a Dravida King (Sathyavratha). K.N.Ramanathan

That is no problem for hindus, Mr. Ramanathan, we are so thoroughly intermixed here, fair colour and thick lips, dark colour and thin lips, it is futile to trace origins. This was to silence those who delight in divide. But one cannot dispute the fact that many tribes from Central Asia came to India and adopted Hinduism, including the Aryans. It is certainly not coincidence or independent development. BTW, even the next Indra also is going to be a dravida, he being King Mahabali of Kerala. Aupmanyav 12:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Hinduism

Hinduism has evolved over centuries or even Millenium. Hindu Puranas (The 18 Puranas)have to be read as historic recordings over various Millenia. Hindu puranas talk about Pralaya or destruction of whole civilization many times over. The order of creation explained in Hindu texts broadly matches the present day theories of evolution (first creation of matter from energy, and then over billions of years, creation of single cell life forms, intelligence or budhi tathwam or Mahatathwam as it is called and then the various sensory organs and the media like direction air and sound or sight adnlight or selse of touch and skin etc. and then to higher level of life forms). The scriptures have also kept track of the time evolved. We are presently in the second Parardha (an eighteen digit number) of the Padma Kalpa. The first creation was in Brahma Kalpa when the big bang occured and the universe was created. There are 14 Manvanthara in each Kalpa and in each Manvanthara there are 71 cycles of Chathur Yuga (Kritha yugam, Thretha Yugam, Dwapara yugam , and Kali yugam.)At the end of each cycle of Chathur Yugam, there is loss of civilization either in part or in full. Many inventions will be lost. But vague indications of achievements may be left behind as stories. The puranic recordings show continuity. All of them talk about Vedas being handed over from generation to generation through oral or verbal transmission. Only a handful of people carried this message. Many times over the vedic messages or meanings have been lost or misinterpreted. Vedas themselves are like Wikipedia, and written or verse narrated / created by a number of saints or rishis. Upanishads are explanation of the Truth in the Vedas by the desciples of the Rishis. The Epics and Puranas are examples of practice of Vedic rituals and beliefs. These should not be read in bits and pieces. They have to be taken together. According to Hindu scriptures, destruction of civilization takes place when ever the natural balance is totally disturbed. en we will ealise that Archeological excavations may not be in a position to guage the antiquity or age of these scriptures. Do we have methods today to go deep enough over milleniums. Do we believe that material used over 10 or 12 Millenium will still be available as materials or utensils even after the earth has been subjected to numerous floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other pressures. Many organic materials have been converted to Hydrocarbons. Why we cannot accept the dates and history given in the Puranas.

I suggest that we write two versions side by side 1) based on the historic evidence collected through excavations or as interpreted by so called experts with todays' limited knowledge (all Hindu scriptures are in Sanskrit and there is no evidence in any excavation of sanskrit script being found in Mohanjadaro or Harappa or Saraswathi river bed)and 2) based on the evolution and antiquity explalined in the Hindu scriptures and also the time frame indicated there-in from begining of creation to present date. Hindu scriptures are the oldest social or religious information we have about humanity. This may also be History of human civilization and not of Hindus of today. Who knows as to whether Hinduism started in present day Americas or Africas and not in India. Humanity will develop enough expertice and knowledge one day to correctly guage the age of earth. K.N.R.--K.N.Ramanathan 23:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board"

Scholars do not know if the language of Indus valley civilisation was Sanskrit or not. The script remains undeciphered despite various claims. Aupmanyav 12:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Invasion Section

I propose the following text to replace the entirety of the current material in this section. Why? Because the section is badly written style-wise and I beleive the current material deals mostly by examples for which there are many exceptions and a more over-arching approach is required to summarize the 1000 or so years that I beleive it is attempting to cover. Please help me make the

Islamic rulers began to extend their rule across Hindu populated lands in the 8th century CE and Islam began to spread across the Indian-subcontinent over several centuries. Most converts were from Hinduism or Buddhism; the two dominant local religions. The prime drivers attributed to the conversions are: duress, political expediency, oppressive legal/ legislative climate, oppressive caste structure, jizya, Sufi missionaries, inter-marraige and immigration from other Islamic lands. Many of the new muslim rulers looked down upon Hindu Iconodulistic religious practices. and were to various degrees iconoclastic. In times of conflict they also took also took the liberty to sack Hindu temples, which were repositaries of significant wealth.

Also I do not beleive quotations from Will Durant, K.S. Lal or to a particular book are appropiate in the context of this section and article, because that would mean you would have to provide space to their critics, detractors, debates (the other side of the coin) which in this case just diverges from the article theme.

Which brings me the next point what is the point of this section vis-a-vis hinduism as a relgion and belief. At the moment this article reads just like a historical summary. Some things I can think of are which are more pertinent to the development of this section in this article:

Temple Destruction
Syncretism/ Reaction to a new moral code

--194.170.10.119 09:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can help improve the article, go ahead. Don't forget the citations and references when you do. Why don't you obtain a user name and log in?--D-Boy 08:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Map

I find it strange that Philippines is shown to be having Hindu influence, which I do not think is correct; and Central Asian countries Uzbekinstan, Turkmenistan, Tajdhikistan left out. These are the countries where Aryans remained for a long time writing their RigVedic verses (perhaps RigVeda was codified there for the first time), and where they met with the Hindu thought for the first time. Aupmanyav 13:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Kid, first get your basics right, then try to find things strange. Philippines is a country with a strong Hindu heritage. The people of Phillipines were Hindu until they were converted by Spaniards into Christianity. Kid, read this article- Hinduism in the Philippines. You'll know why Phillipines has a Hindu influence. As for Central Asian countries, yeah, we need to add them

(who wants to give you a barnstar ?)

--N R S^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 18:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars, at least I am not asking for them. I would agree about Hindu influence in Philippines, though the evidence is not very strong. They were certainly neighbours. Aupmanyav 07:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs references

The entire article needs a lot of references and sources. I'll add whatever I have.--^Babub→Talk 19:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Babub, I disagree that Hinduism is 9000 years old. This is just false.

Hinduism that began with Vedic religious practices is at the most 4000-4500 years old or in other words, it began about 2000-2500 B.C. Please remove all the extreme right-wing statements from that article. IAF

You are welcome to point out any such "extreme-right wing" stuff and even edit them :) Also, always give references. --^Babub→Talk 08:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not what you call "extreme-right wing stuff". It is simple. You need to understand that when the Aryans came to India they encountered a strong indigenous philosophy, the one which assimilated them and finally absorbed them (made them forget Indra and worship Shiva and Vishnu). So, the indigenous philosophy was older than the time when Aryans met it, first in Central Asia (Uttarapatha), and later in the Indo-Gangetic plains. Now, what date you give to coming of Aryans? They were fighting probably the Mahabharata War in 3,102 BCE. That is why it is no exaggeration to think that Hindu religion (indigenous philosophy) may be 9000 year old or more. Aupmanyav 13:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I do not agree with your views Aupmanyav and Babub. They are just not true. Both of you are on one extreme, while Dbachmann was on the other extreme. Vedic religious practices date to at the most 2000 BC, and not 4000 BC. When the Aryans came to India, Shiva DID NOT EXIST in the local pantheon or cult. The assimilation theory can be said about Kushans, Shungas etc. but not to the Aryans. IAF
I am in no way extreme. I merely insist that the academic mainstream is given prominence on Wikipedia, regardless on whether I agree with it or not. Most of the time, checking sources, I find myself convinced by the reasoning behind academic mainstream opinion. There are too many editors who obviously have no grasp of the concept of academia, and think they must be experts because they are from somewhere, which is of course an extremely stupid and rather dangerous mistake. IAF is right here, but it should be added that there were likely local predecessors of Shiva (not called "Shiva", obviously), and especially popular rituals such as those of the Atharvaveda may well have a strong indigenous (pre-Aryan) component. The 3102 BC date is purely legendary of course, calculated I believe in the 5th century AD. IAF's 2000 BC date is a reasonable upper limit. dab (ᛏ) 11:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dab, what makes you think that the local 'predecessor/s' was not called Shiva (which incorporated the Vedic Rudra) and does not the pre-ponderance of Vishnu and His avataras (especially Rama and Krishna) in Hinduism and His scant references in the Vedas point again to a pre-Vedic Vishnu? Same for Shakti. Aupmanyav 15:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

IAF, no assimilation with Aryans. So, did they remain separate, where are they now? And, if Shiva did not exist in India at that time, where did it come from? You do not accept it to be either Hindu or Aryan. Who destroyed Daksha's yagna, beheaded him, gave him a goat's head, and broke God Pusha's teeth? Hinduism was there before the Aryan thought joined it. I maintain that Aryan philosophy is extremely old and is older than the time when sun rose in Aditi (Punarvasu) on the day of Vernal equinox (6000 BC). The equinox is then clearly recorded to regress progressively to Mrigashiras, Krittikas, and Ashwini. Aupmanyav 15:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dab/IAF, Aryans were surely well settled in India around 1900 BC when River Saraswati had not disappeared. That is why some of them who lived in that region were known as 'Saraswats'. So can it be taken that Aryans came to India about 5000 years ago? Aupmanyav 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"think they must be experts because they are from somewhere, which is of course an extremely stupid and rather dangerous mistake" *sigh* I assume this refers to me and other editors who don't see anything wrong in citing Indian authors (they're not all evil,you know). Indian academia is also a pretty serious business. We have the largest number of universities in the world. I, personally, have no qualms in citing any author even if he be from Mars (to use dab's own words). No serious academic has *actually* challenged the accounts/theories by the authors I usually quote. They are pretty much mainstream here in India. If you think there was never any intellectual life ever in India before our colonial cousins came, see

Students at Takshashila University, founded in Taxila (Ancient India) from around the 7th century BC, were given academic titles after graduating from one of its many courses. Nalanda University, founded in Bihar (India) from around the 5th century BC, also gave academic titles to its graduates, while also offering post-graduate courses

and

The ancient cities of Takshashila, Nalanda, Vikramasila, and Kanchipura in ancient India were greatly reputed centres of learning in the east, with students from all over Asia. In particular, Nalanda was a famous center of Buddhist scholarship, and as such it attracted thousands of Buddhist scholars from China, East Asia, Central Asia and South-East Asia, while also attracting many students from Persia and the Middle East.

from the University article.--^Babub→Talk 16:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Babub, forget Taxila, Nalanda, Vikramsila, and Kanchipura; they spoil the force of your argument. Aupmanyav 16:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just quoting, I'm not trying to argue anything here. --^Babub→Talk 11:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no consistency

this page mentions hinduism to be the largest polytheistic religion in the world while hinduism page mentions hinduism to be monotheistic religion. can we be consistent here. nids 23:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] history section

changed the history section slightly. the astronomy is not supported by mainstream archeologists as the religious textbooks for sure, do not give exact locations of the stars in any of the text. You not only need the exact location of the stars down to the one hundredth of a degree, you need the correct conversion from the ancient units to current units, you need the exact time the event occured and the exact location. Not only that, the error is still quite wide. AS a result!!! it is impossible to predict the date of the birth of a certain god from religious textbooks that mention only one or two lines on the star position. And for sure, these religious texts are not using units of time that are even equivalent to our unit of time or even gives an exact location. 75.9.38.198 23:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defination of Hindu?

Please provide defination of Hindu, before writing this article.

Things you have written in this article are already covered in History of India. Please do not duplicate it.

Define who hindu is and then write History of Hinduism. Thanks

Those who worship Shiva Lingam i.e. Phallus are Hindus. In India we have seen such many Shiva Temples. All Hindu men and women religiously worship Lingam. When first time realised I was surprised but its their religion so lets accept. Don't be anti-Hindu but you can this good difinition to others. Truthlover 18:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Truthlover, Those who worship Lingams are not only Hindu(?). There are multiple sects. Mainly two. Those who worship Shiva are called shaivas and those who worship Vishnu are called vaishnavas. There is no clear defination of "Hindu". The only concern I have is how this is related to buddha who does not believe in Purusha Theory or "God"(Since Buddha never answered questions about "God" and he defined his religion based (partially)upon Kapila's Sankhya philosophy which does not believe in "GOD" but humans 5 senses and brain).

Authers of this article are trying to brand Buddha under Vishnu Family which I find untrue, baseless. Also they are unable to provide any reference/documentation related to this. Hence I request to remove History of Buddhism from History of Hinduism.

WP:TROLL. Enough said.Hkelkar 03:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism section

Hi, I've given the Buddhism section a copy edit. Hope that's ok with everyone. Addhoc 13:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

take some issue with the unsourced claims in your edits to the Jain section, but your Buddhism edits seem ok to me.Hkelkar 15:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir, Please read the NPOV about the Buddhism section. Indian Buddhist monks have been fighting to get this "Avatara" tag from Buddha for years. Every time this issue has arised there have been furios demonstrations in Capital Delhi as well as other parts of India. This Section should be maintained as Disputed as long as the religios leaders do not come to a valid conclusion. Pointing "example the Bhagavata purana" also does not proove the NPOV as it is not a conclusive evidence/proof to this sentence. Unless both communities accept it, It should be maintained as disputed section. "Bhagavata Purana" is also a perspcetive of the writer and not general belief/fact that Buddha was an avatara. (Avatara concpet itself is unacceptable in buddhist teachings.)

Inserting Adi Shankaracharya comments are completely unacceptable as every indian either knows (If he has read documents about his life) or believes (If he hasnt read documents) that Adi Shankaracharya debated with monks and got them make sucide in boiling oil when they lost, until he lost himself. (That was the condition for their debate). I hope other users do not disagree with this.

Also the other WP:NOR should be removed.

Thanks.--Bodhidhamma 16:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Until there are sources, or tag remains per WP:NOR. None of your remarkable claims are sourced except for your rants and feverish raves. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for missionaries.Hkelkar 16:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hkelkar, your bizarre comments are not relevant. Addhoc 16:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are not ready to remove that unsourced sentence from wikipedia. If wikipedia is for NPOV why it should write such unsourced comments. Its better not provide information than providing wrong/disputed information.For Mr. HKelkar, why that Tab should remain when there is no reliabe source as per WP:NOR.

BTY. I am not a missionary. I am an IITB Mechanical engineering graduate and working for an MNC in USA for past 5 years. Bodhidhamma 17:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Guess what? I am an IITB Engineering Physics graduate (2002 Batch) working for a PhD in USA. What's yuor point? Besides, you had asserted as User:Dhammafriend, one of your sock puppets (see this RFCU), that you were a missionary in Germany. Those intercontinental flights must be faster than I thought, eh?Hkelkar 17:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that really is an amazing coincidence. That said, I don't believe Bodhidhamma or Dhammafriend are missionaries for any religion. Seeing Bodhidhamma has challenged sources without mentioning fighting, demonstrations or boiling oil, I have removed the sentence about Shankaracharya. Addhoc 17:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is I am not a missionary. Whats your point? About physics : Read Albert EinstineScience thrives for imagination but the knowledge we gain has to be based upon 1. perceptio 2. inference 3. valid testimony. Did you ever write references in your thesis? (no offence please, just a wondering?)

I dont understand when wikipidia works toward NPOV why you want to keep "avatara statement" here without any reason. Why it is so important to History Of Hinduism and it is not Biography of Buddha. About puppet thing let the truth speak for itself. I have had enough discussion about it. check RFCU)--Bodhidhamma 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you exactly want? Would a citation with page and verse no. from purana which says that buddha was considered to be an avatar of vishnu be fine for you.--nids (♂) 20:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats how you should write religios controvertial documents dont you think so? How do we write references? Book/Article name:Published year:Page:Line Number. I wanted the complete Buddhism Section to be removed, thats my POV. But it is wikipedia's policy to work toward NPOV. So I am just asking to remove the avatara statement and other WP:NOR statements to be removed. (pls. refer to the NPOV dispute section above )--Bodhidhamma 20:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We are discussing mythology part here. How do you respond to Mohammed talking to god and Christ being son of god. You must be knowing that buddha too conceived of virgin birth. How will you explain that with your science. Or will you ask to remove that too.nids (♂) 20:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"buddha too conceived of virgin birth". This is first time I am reading. Since I conside this as WP:NOR I wont comment on it, it will divert the discussion we are having. If you know where you have read that I would be delighted to read it. I wont comment on other religions belief as I respct what they believe in even if I have diff. POV and expect others to follow the same. Buddism is all about understanding the universe by ways of your 5 senses and analysing the information you gatherd by your brain and applying those 3 rules I have been saying again and again to have your opinion about it. I do not see any reason why I should believe in Avatara.--Bodhidhamma 20:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

See here for the requested source and ask it to be deleted from there. As far as avatara thing is concerned, you are not asked to beleive in avatara, it is what is written in Puranas, and just reported here.nids (♂) 20:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion forum. Could you ensure your future postings are focussed purely on the article content. Thanks, Addhoc 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, are you are pointing to any of my comments?? I just want to show that avatara thing is just a hindu beleif and this is pointed out in atleast five of the puranas. I dont see any reason that this should not be mentioned in the article.nids (♂) 20:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that Bodhidhamma is steering this discussion off topic. If he wants to add a citatation needed tag to an individual sentence, then ok. But we shouldn't be debating his personal understanding of Buddhism. Addhoc 20:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what i am concerned with. He also keeps on removing navayana from Indian Buddhist Movement page. nids (♂) 21:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Adhoc, I am sorry that I put all those latest comments which I accept were off the topic. I would add citation needed tags. Nidhish: againt I do not want to go off the topic but you are accusing of the things which I didnt do. I do not go all over the places and change/tamper/vandalise pages. I stick to one topic at a time. It is only hypocrites who have opinion about everything not me, I study before I talk. If I write any controvertial document against your religion, wont you ask me same questions to check the validity of the document?

Adhoc, I still didnt get answers from the writers Why Buddha's avatara is so important to History Of Hinduism that even after so much discussion it is not being removed? In my POV it is totally irrelevant/off the topic. --Bodhidhamma 01:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that it is YOUR POV, NOT NPOV. Unfortunately, wikipedia runs on WP:NPOV not your POV.Sorry.Hkelkar 02:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And What irresponsible/rubbish/Pro-Right wing Hindu(read pro-RSS) statements you have written without thinking that you are hurting other community's religious sentiments are NPOV? If you have NPOV why you are fighting with jains, buddhists, sikhs, christians, muslims, your own hindu castes users? Chaging their text/accusing users/vandalising thier pages/applying different rules to those pages and different rules to your pro-hindu pages? This is totally biased. I dont even feel that I should point all those pages here.It is useless. I dont have anything to say hereafter. If wikipedian wants to maintain its credibility, they will decide about the NPOV or you pay for your karma (ref sankhya). I refuse to argue with hyporites who just want to force upon others what they think. Its not that I cant continue, I do not see any point when people do not have holistic neutral view. Thanks for your time. If I have hurt anyone please accept my apologies. --Bodhidhamma 03:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well if "Rubbish pro RSS" means "cited edits from reliable sources" then ok. It's better than the rabid missionary whack-job neurosis of quasi-Buddhist wikitrolls with nothing better to do than bother legitimate users from contributing to the article despite multiple admonishments from multiple users.Hkelkar 03:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Brahmins = "reliable sources"? Since when?

Prove that the sources are "Brahmin". Besides, why should whack-job quasi-Buddhists be reliable sources then?Hkelkar 04:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Even Buddha sang praises of true 'Brahmans'. Aupmanyav 17:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should Bodhidhamma be banned?

I am prepared to cooperate in whatever procedures are needed to collectively ban this user. His presence is disgusting.Hkelkar 03:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Bodhidhamma changed username to user:PakkaPunekarHkelkar 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute :Why Buddha Should not be considered as Avatara

Please Refer Samyutta Nikaya. It answers the question about buddha's thoughts about God. Since I do not have english printed version I would request you to refer this website buddhist philosophy

'Monks, that sphere should be realized where the eye (vision) stops and the perception (mental noting) of form fades. That sphere is to be realized where the ear stops and the perception of sound fades... where the nose stops and the perception of aroma fades... where the tongue stops and the perception of flavor fades... where the body stops and the perception of tactile sensation fades... where the intellect stops and the perception of idea/phenomenon fades: That sphere should be realized'

Basically It says. Buddhism is religion of mind.

1. If the GOd indeed the creator of all living things, then all the things here should submit to His power unquestioningly. Like the vessels produced by a potter, they should remain without any individuality of their own. If that is so, how can there be an opportunity for any one to practice virtue?

2. If this world is indeed created by God, then there should be no sorrow or calamity or evil in this world, for all deeds, both pure and impure, must come from Him.

3. If it is not so, then there must be some other cause besides God which is behind Him, in which case He would not be self-existent.

4. It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that which is absolute cannot be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we can say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly It is not their creator.

5. If we consider the Self as the maker, why did it not make things pleasant? Why and how should it create so much sorrow and suffering for itself?

6. It is neither God nor the self nor some causeless chance which creates us. It is our our deeds which produce both good and bad results according to the law of causation.

7. We should therefore "abandon the heresy of worshipping God and of praying to him. We should stops all speculation and vain talk about such matters and practice good so that good may result from our good deeds

Also refer the Digha Nikaya which talks about rebirth (and not reincarnation). The concept of rebirth is completely different from reincarnation. This a brief dialog from Milinda Panha.

"Revered Nagasena," said the king, "is it true that nothing transmigrates, and yet there is rebirth? "Yes Majesty." "How can this be?...Give me an illustration." "Suppose your majesty, a man lights one lamp from another- does the one lamp transmigrates to the other?" "No your Reverence." "So there is rebirth without anything transmigrating!"

After reading this and applying the rule of perception, inference and valid testimony one can surely understand, that buddhism does not believe in either "Extream Creator/GOD" or its reincarnation. Vishnu is considered as Extreame Creator. A=B, B=C hence A=C.

Since Bhagavat Purana is not an authentic Buddhist Document nor I could find any reference to buddha in bhagavat purana. Hence my request to remove the reincarnation/avatara statement from this page.

Thanks. --PakkaPunekar 00:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC) I had to change the user name From Bodhhidhamma to comply with wikipedia policy.

Note: PakkaPunekar was User:Bodhidhamma.Hkelkar 00:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at both references. I am not changing it. The reference user has given is not yet a published document and still a evaluation copy. ( I guess they have just started that work.)Also read the other reference and let the truth speak for itself.

The history of this article shows how desparately this user want to put this sentence (ref: propaganda and WP:NPOV). He changed the text from "Hindu belief" to Purana to "Bhagavat Purana" and gave those links which does not make wikipedia's varifible, reliable resources policy.--PakkaPunekar 01:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. Look at WP:Reliable sources more carefully. Religious beliefs are inherently partisan and so partisan sources can be linked as primary sources to cite a religious belief which this IS. Don't fake-cite please. I have lost all patience with this nonsense.Hkelkar

I am not arguing reliabel resources policy. Read the copyright notice in that evaluation copy. Also which Bhagavat Purana you think is correct and which is not? As far as I understand all copies should look same if they are translated from one document. (Atleast the chapters)Thanks--PakkaPunekar 01:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Different clerics have different translations. Clerics are not fax machines. Read about the history of copying the Bible, for instances. There are distinct differences between the King James Bible & the Gutenberg Bible because different clerics introduced slightly differring translations. The issue here is normative belief of Hindus, and Hindus normatively believe that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu. Buddhists may disagree. That does not belong here as we are discussing Hinduism vis-a-vis other religions.Hkelkar 01:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But you said Hindu belief/Purana/Bhagavat Purana. You did not specify which cleric's purana. For wikipedia it is factual error. What I am saying is, it is some greedy people's propaganda to call Buddha an avatara so that they can bring Brahmin broker system in Indian Viharas. (Its millions rupees business for them but it kills buddha's thought for which he lived all his life.) Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda. --PakkaPunekar 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The same applies to you too. The fact is that many pseudo-Buddhists are trying to incite hatred against Hindus as a political stunt to gain publicity/power. Wikipedia is not a propaganda medium for them wither.Hkelkar 01:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also I would like to know Which Bhagawad Purana is more popular and reffered by Hindus, so that I can read it. (Yes it is easy since I am in US, If I was in India no one would have given it to me, since I am an ati-shudra.. verifiable?) No Personal attacks please. --PakkaPunekar 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right! What a delusional statement! You can get copies of any Purana from the Bombay University Library, the JNU University Library in Delhi, the Presidency College Library in Calcutta, and a million other places where you could be a pink-skinned Martian and they wouldn't care.Hkelkar 01:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wonder who pays you to tout this rubbish. The Pakistani ISI?Hkelkar 01:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The person who is arguing that the article should not mention Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu is missing the point. Nobody is trying to argue that Buddha actually was and incarnation of Vishnu. In theological matters like this the arguments are as much on one side as on the other. What is important is that many Hindus believe Buddha to be an avatar, and this concept has impacted the History of Hinduism, which is what this article is about. So the reference should remain. The article should not report on what the nature of God is, but it should report on what people BELIEVE the nature of God is, and how that has affected histroy. Perhaps there could be a disclaimer along the lines of "The Bhagavat Purana states that Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu, a belief which attests to the historical ability of Hinduism to embrace and absorb many diverse beliefs and traditions. Buddhists themselves, of course, do not generally accept this Hindu concept regarding Buddha." Or something like that. HeBhagawan 12:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not considered to be an avatara of Lord Vishnu by Buddhists, no contest. Considered to be an avatara of Lord Vishnu by Hindus, again no contest. People differ in their views on so many things. Aupmanyav 17:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of the Sarasvati river civilization

The Vedas describe the Sarasvati River as one of the centers of the Aryan culture. The river is dry but the ruins of that civilization remains. Images of Siva and other gods known today were found there, fire pits designed for the vedic rituals. Why isn't there any mention of that here?--tequendamia 13:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Presumably you're talking about the Harrappans here. There is a lot of dispute regarding this between the Aryan Invasion Theory (asserting the European/Nazi point of view that Aryans were white and came to India and massacred the Harrappans) and the Out of India Theory (asserting the Hindu point of view that the Harrappans continuously evolved into Vedic and then Classical Hindu society). Interestingly, you just made a point that is supported by the Hindu Nationalists and opposed by the socialists :) .Hkelkar 13:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am more iterested in facts and evidence regardless their political implications.--tequendamia 13:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This should be an interesting debate. I personally support your assertion that the Saraswati people should be mentioned here.Hkelkar 13:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it accepted by all that their are Vedis (fire pits) in Harappa? If Shiva idols were found there, perhaps it was not Aryan, but indigenous Indian. It is not that just Aryans were fair, the inhabitants of northern India (Haryana, Punjab, Uttaranchal, Himachal, and Kashmir) also would be naturally fair. Which Saraswati? Perhaps Aryans named many rivers during their travels as their beloved Saraswati (originally a celestial river represented by the milky way) and the conduit of the water of life (Apah, which is not used just in the sense of water). Hari-rud in Afghanistan is another candidate (it is mentioned as Haroyu in Avesta, the sixth homeland of Aryans). Just some points. I do not dispute that the Saraswati valley (cannot say the same about Indus valley) was home to Aryans for a long period before its drying up. Aupmanyav 05:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes but we should at least talk about the theoretical possibility that the Harrappans evolved continuously into the Vedic civ. We can mention it as one theory (bear in mind that AIT has been questioned and still is a theory).Hkelkar 06:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Along with AIT, there is an Aryan Migration Theory (without any major conflict). Why would there be a conflict if the Aryans and Indians merged in Central Asia and Aryans came to India after that? In India various people worship various Gods, Shiva, Vishnu, Durga, Ganesh, Murugan, and others; they do not fight among each other. The worship of Vedic Gods and the observance of Vedic practices is diffused in all hinduism. Aupmanyav 11:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut out Vimanas

Please cut out Vimanas, you make me laugh. You had the atom bomb also? What else? Be reasonable, this is 21st Century. Aupmanyav 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BKWSU and Hare Krishnas

This may be contentious but are the Brahma Kumaris and the Hare Krishnas notable enough to figure within the Hindu Reform movements? They both figure highly in the West, the Hare Krishna and a sankirtan revivalist movement and the Brahma Kumaris as a high profile radical revisionist movement that claims Shiva has incarnated and is speaking through their mediums, correcting the true Gita, that the Kalpna is only 5,000 years old and the Iron Age just about to end.

The Brahma Kumaris are a difficult one because although their language, cultural and ethic roots are certain Hindu, they claim that they are not Hindus but due to the Cyclic nature of time, their religion today will become Hinduism in the future. That Hinduism is an impure version of their practise. 195.82.106.244 12:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Hare Krishnas (ISKCON), as a modern branch of Gaudiya Vaishnavism have made a significantly large impact for Hindu culture on a global basis (especially in literary terms). 60,000 people (mostly from mainstream Hinduism) visit Bhaktivedanta Manor in England on Janmasthami, it's hardly a minority cult movement. In my opinion they definitely deserve a mention. GourangaUK 18:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Iskcon temple in Bangalore sees hundreds of thousands of visitors on Janmasthami. --BostonMA ^talk 19:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to mention a cult in hinduism pages if they say they are not hindu. They are welcome to their philosophies. It only shows their pettyness if they say hinduism is impure. So, IMHO, they need to tell us if they are hindus or not, that should be the measure. If they gather a few hundred or a few thousand followers in the west, that is not relevant to nearly a billion hindus. Aupmanyav 18:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

With due respect to GourangaUK, the Hare krishna system is confused on many issues. They have to come clean on whether they consider themselves part of Hinduism or not. Since they are part of Hinduism by default, if they disagree with this, they should make a clear case and be consistent. Tap dancing from one foot to another depending on the situation is what they do now. Sometimes they are part of Hinduism, whenever the affiliation may provide some benefit. Otherwise, they are not. This attitude comes from the founder himself, who is well know for making contradictory statements. Hence, the ball is really in the Hare Krishna court. If they can make a clear admission that they consider themselves as part of Hinduism and can stand by it, then they certainly deserve a mention on this page. Shvushvu 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] age needs source

the bald opening statement, "The History of Hinduism is a topic spanning over 9000 years" does not appear to be substantiated by anything in the article (except for an uncited estimate of the date of a historical Rama) and is not consistent with the Hinduism article. Doldrums 06:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with you. An uncited estimate of the date of a historical Rama is not consistent with hinduism, because he did not establish Hinduism. Hinduism, if we go by Puranas must be older than that. Rama was preceded by Parusharama, Nri-Simha, Vamana, Varah, Kurma, and Matsya avataras. So actually we to find the date of Swayambhu Manu or beginning of Satya Yuga. Since his date cannot be found from independent sources, we have to look for other evidence. The best is that historians have not found any major change between the Mehrgarh civilization (approx. 7,000 BC) and Harappa civilization. Also they have not found any major anthropological changes from the Harappa civilization to the present. We could assume that same people are following nearly the same beliefs since that time. After all Harappa had the seals with the ascetic and the bull. There is no evidence of any other religion in this region or in south or east, so we can also say that Hinduism has been around from times immemorial. What would you choose between the two? If anyone else has a better guess, we could consider that also. Aupmanyav 18:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Doldrums, there has been no reply from you. Should I take it that you accept the above reasoning and the 9000 year date, and remove the citation that the date is dubious? Aupmanyav 06:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garbled Introduction

HINDUISM '..is based on the Veda and indigenous beliefs and traditions of the various groups of people in India. It is rooted in the cultural elements of the Indus valley civilisation, and its foundations were laid in the Historical Vedic religion of the Indo-Aryans, and other parallel and subsequent Indian civilisations. Some hold it to be the world's oldest existing major religion. Although Hinduism entails the worship of numerous Gods and Goddesses, it is a monotheistic religion, since it preaches that all Gods and Goddesses are manifestations of the one Supreme Being.'

First you say that Hinduism includes beliefs and traditions of various groups of people in India. Then you say it is rooted in cultural elements of the Indus valley civilization (what happened to the beliefs and traditions of East, West, and South India?), then you say its foundations were laid in Vedic religion (again what about beliefs and traditions of the rest of India?), then you say Hinduism entails the worship of numerous Gods and Godesses, and you end with 'it is a monotheistic religion'. There are people who would not agree that all Gods and Godesses are manifestations of any one Supreme Being, or you want to make it compulsory for every one to think your way, and believe that those who worship many Gods are wrong. Who are you, a new Adi Sankaracharya? Remember, even Sankaracharya's doctrine was not accepted by later acharyas. Contradictions upon contradictions! Aupmanyav 06:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please take out the "9000 years old" part in the introduction. An encyclopedia should stick to the mainstream version of history. Alternate views should be presented in a different section clearly stating they are alternate views only. Alside from this, there are numerous inconsistencies in this page - too many to list. There is no clear demarcation between Hinduism and the obsolete Vedic tradition and how this change came about. I can go ahead and edit this article if I can do it. Shvushvu 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Narayana Guru

srinarayana guru was born in chempazhanthi, a portion in early travancore.He studied sanskrit.He was born in the caste of ezhavas. Guru was against the brahmanical supremacy and the high handedness of rituals in the society. He challenged the brahmanical dominance through the 'Aruvippuram Siva prathishta'there after he established the S N D P( sree narayana dharmaparipalana Yogam). His followers initiated the establishment of schools. Guru has written several poems. Great poet of malayaam , Kumaran Asan was his deciple and follower.

[edit] removed map

have removed this map, which was created as a location map for the Indies and used in the article as a location map for "areas under Hindu rule", something the map was not designed to do, resulting in incorrect claims such as the Philippines under Hindu rule and the the modern boundary of Papua New Guinea demarcating the the boundary of Hindu rule in New Guinea. Doldrums 16:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, and I agree that "Hindu rule" sounds very blunt. However those areas, regardless of their political affiliations were historically influenced by Hinduism and the inhabitants of the areas shown in the map followed Hindu traditions and customs. Therefore it would be inappropriate to delete the map entirely. I'm sure you will appreciate the correction I made to the addition.

Darkness1089 (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

ummm.. making the caption more vague doesn't address the concerns raised at all. a map showing the distribution of adherents of Hinduism may be appropriate for this article, but the present map doesn't cut it. Doldrums (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, this article is not about the demographics and population distribution of Hindus. This map shows the geographic regions where the philosophies of Hinduism does or has had a significant cultural, political, or economic impact. This map does not misrepresent anything IMO, however if you feel that the caption is vague, feel free to change it and whatever changes are made can be negotiated.

Darkness1089 (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this map is that it is a map of the Indies. not a map of "Hindu influence" (whatever that is) or "Hindu rule. so the boundaries it shows have nothing to do with such influence or rule, as i've indicated above. you say the map does not misrepresent anything. i'm saying it does misrepresent the boundaries. you're welcome to create a sourced map of "Hindu rule", "Hindu influence" or whatever, and include it in the map. picking up an arbitrary map because it looks roughly like what a properly-made map would doesn't cut it. changing the caption wording won't help. i can make the caption precise - "A map of the Indies" but then it obviously won't have a place in this article. Doldrums (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)