Talk:Hinduism/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Article Anti-Hindu 2 Satwik & Gau Puja. 3 Monotheism 4 About.com 5 Edits 5.1 questing 6 Image at Hindu 7 please update image 8 Vedas 9 Hinduism Barnstar Proposal 10 Why are some words bolded in the text? 11 A suggestion: It would be good if varied sources are also used to cite concepts 12 Some information I read from an academic book - which may be cited in this article 13 Old, featured version of Hinduism article 14 Neutrality on the Varnas/Caste section 15 'experience the Divinity that is everywhere' 16 Modern vs. Old, Orthodox vs. Unorthodox 17 Problems with English 18 Heaven and Hell 19 Reviving discussion on brahman phrasing 20 Variation in Romanisation

Article Anti-Hindu

Cant believe such articles are allowed here! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Hindu And the mention of this article is on Hinduism page! Sarvabhaum 17:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you read this article? What's your objection? swadhyayee 17:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have.My objection is existance of Anti-hindu article.This article is propogating hate about Hindu religion. Ok u mean anti-Hindu? no i have not and i dont want to.Sarvabhaum 18:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. There is also Islamophobia, which Anti-Muslim and Anti-Christian prejudice and Antisemitism which is against Jewish people. Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that is definatly true...It would be very hard to find any religion that doesn't have any criticisms or any people who are anti that particular religion. This is just due to the fact that the world is a very, very large place and many people have their viewpoints. Don't fret about it or you will never overcome it.__Seadog ^♪ 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu article is not against Hindu, it is about the phenomena of people propagating anti-Hindu ideas. You should read it, it is not against Hinduism. I feel, you should not object without seeing it. swadhyayee 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-X" articles are typically written by adherents of X. See also talk:Islamophobia. That's not to say that such "Anti-X" phobias do not really exist, but you are more likely to find "Anti-X" articles are really "pro X" propaganda than otherwise. I am being accused of "Anti-Armeniamism" for not accepting that the Mitanni were Armenians, as "Anti-Turkic" for not accepting the Scythians were Turks, "Anti-Macedonian" for not accepting the Ancient Macedonians were Slavs (or Greeks), "Anti-Islamic" for insisting that depictions of Muhammad have a place on Wikipedia, and, yes, "Anti-Hindu" for not accepting the IVC was "Vedic". dab (𒁳) 12:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Go thru that article and Islamophobia. U will find many diffences.Anti-hindu articles is pathetic and rediculuous! Esp the image displayed on the top.The whole scanned booklet containing rants against Hinduism.Sarvabhaum 11:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Satwik & Gau Puja.

This has reference to contents of article and recent edit of Magicalsaumi who has preferred not to chage or comment the "Satwik" food and "Gau Puja".

I feel, "Satwik" should be spelled as "Satvik".

It is im-proper to say that veg. food is "Satvik" or non-veg is avoided to stick to "Satvik" food. In no terms, non-veg. is accepted as food but the food is divided in 3 catagories i) Satvik 2) Rajsi and 3) Tamsi. They are described along with similar 3 catagories of faiths in Ch.17 of Srimad Bhagawad Geeta. So telling all veg. food is "Satvik" is grossly wrong.

Regarding cow not being worshipped but venerated is partial truth. There is a day ("Bal-Choth") when cow is worshipped. Cow is not worshipped the way idol is worshipped except on "Bal-Choth" or similar other days. Similarly, I think bullocks, elephants and snakes are also worshipped. One can not say, Hindus venerate snakes though there is "Nag-Puja". One may find idol of "Pothia" (bullock?)in any "Shiv" temple and customarily one has to show reverence to "Pothia" 1st than "Shiv". I think, the sages in order to protect birds and animals from killing placed some reverence in them. Like crows are considered to be "Pitrus", Eagle to be vehicle of "Vishnu" and so on. The true things should be properly expounded. swadhyayee 03:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is better to use the term "veneration" for puja, because it gives a positive image to the Catholic world who make a SHARP distinction between their veneration and worship practices (dulia and latria). For we Hindus, terminology does not matter, but, in case you haven't noticed, Wikipedia is meant for the global world, which contains many biased people. Remember, for US, it does not matter what terms we use, but for THEM, it matters. And again and again you cannot say that we are not going to be Euro-centric, or force the rest of the world to accept our fabricated semantics. Don't make Hinduism appear like a pagan, barbaric and foolish animism, which it actually is not. Use good terms. Use icon instead of idol. Puja stands for both veneration and worship. My interpretation is that the Hindus only worship God, and venerate the rest of the things (animals, trees, guests, gurus devas, icons, etc) as symbols of Divine manifestation. Also, Bhagavad Gita never mentions veg-nonveg foods and stuff. It is just an interpretation of later Hinduism. Cygnus_hansa 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to have to dis-agree with you in certain respect. I would not agree to make the article to satisfy Catholic world. I think, our terminology should be extended to world over and let the world accept our terminology like Puja, Murti etc. There is world other than Catholics. Why any un-due importance to Catholic world? We have provided lot many words to English Dictionary. One of them being "Yoga" for instant illustration. I am sorry but your idea that Wikipedia contains many biased may also be your biased view. You may be right but we should not write this article keeping our presumed state of Catholicy world in mind. I have observed here that there is lot difference between British English and American English. It is un-fortunate that most of Americans think themselves to be better than the rest of world and pat their back in claiming they are native speakers. I am totally in dis-agreement for using "icon" in place of idol which is in use for long. There are some people with malice intention to prove that Hinduism has it's roots in christainity. Use of their words will only support such malice.

Regarding Veg. and Non- veg. food, I think, I will have to refer Geeta to comment but I am sure there is no mention of non-veg as food. Since, there is no mention of chemical being or not being a food, can we say that Geeta does not say chemical is not a food. Geeta has proclaimed "Ahimsa" being a divine virtue in Chapter 16. Is it not sufficient to say that Geeta does not accept non-veg as food? I will hopefully provide you with more illustrations. Have you checked Ch.17 about Satvik food as against Rajsi or Tamsi food? swadhyayee 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, ahimsa has many interpretations. In most places it means against mankind, though in later times, it was extended against animals too. It is just what you conclude from here that it means vegetarianism. It has no direct implications on food. Of course there is mention of Samkhya concepts od Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, but there is no explicit listing about which foods belong to which category. This is what I am saying. And yes, if you want to make terminologies, semantics and connotations according to your POV, I guess English wikipedia is not the best place for it. Why don't you go to Hindi and Sanskrit wikipedias and write what you want? English is not the native language of the Indians. When I came to the United States I found that half the English we use has different meaning or connotation in the global scenario (forget about just the United States). I think it is not very wise to dance Waltz in Bharat Natyam costumes. And what you say: "idols" which has been in place for long: you probably don't know that the British deliberately used these terminologies for describing Hinduism because "idol" has a very, very wong connotation in the Christian World. So the terminologies introduced to deliberately malign Hinduism, you end up supporting them. Cygnus_hansa 12:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Cygnus_Hansa, 'Don't make Hinduism appear like a pagan, barbaric and foolish animism'. Have you gone off your rocker? You have said that you have done courses in Hinduism. Is this what those courses have taught you? Apparently you have not assimilated the teaching of your religion. There are millions of pagans and animists in India and probably in billions in the world. It is their concept of truth and their traditions. Please do not insult them by writing such prejudiced things. Aupmanyav 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, I don't think you understand what Cygnus is trying to say here. What I think he is saying is that Hindi and Sanskrit words such as murti have many possible translations in English. The Westerners, in order to present the religion as terrible as possible used the most negative terminologies in can associate these Hindu terms with. Using his example, worshipping icons does not sound as bad as worshipping idols, so the gora scholars would in this case use the word idol as a translation for murti. Swadhyayee is also using negative terminology which had been developed by the scholars. On the English Wikipedia, we have to make the article as simple to understand for everyone speaking English, both Hindus and non-Hindus. Just using words with more positive connotations means that those who are not knowledgeable about Hinduism will learn about our great faith much easier. Gizza^{Chat ©} 14:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza, we hindus are idol worshippers, we cremate our dead, we worship many Gods and some times even none. If any westerner does not like it, it is his/her problem. Should we be ashamed to own that we worship idols? Are we going to say to endear ourselves to westerners that we are not idol worshippers? At another time, Cygnus has been insisting on saying that hinduism is a monotheistic religion, which has been discussed many times in this page and rejected. The challenge still stands. If Cygnus is so ashamed of these things, he should probably join one of the Abrahamic religions. I am ashamed to know of a hindu (is he one?) with such ideas. Still with the colonial mind set, trying to please his western masters? What else we should say to endear ourselves to the westerners? Aupmanyav 17:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Monotheism

I deleted the following edit from Magicalsaumy:

"Most contemporary Hindus would find calling Hinduism polytheistic as something ranging from indifferent, to wrong, to offensive.^[1][2]

1. ^ Vedic foundation: individual views
2. ^ Vedanta Mission FAQs

"

for the following reasons:

• The first reference is simply a web survey and fails the reliable source guidelines.
• The second source does not support the statement (and may not be a reliable source anyway). The only relevant portion I could find on the page, had this to say:

"Q: Is Hinduism polytheistic? A: Hinduism believes in one all-pervading Supreme Reality which in Sanskrit is called "Brahman". Brahman is that infinite, undivided, unchanging reality behind all that we experience, behind the entire universe. The infinite nature of Brahman prevents It from being comprehended by the mind, or described with words. The various gods and goddesses for which Hindiusm is famous, are therefore regarded as the highest representations of That which cannot be entirely represented. This allows the spiritual aspirant to choose the representation that most resonates with his or her heart. And knowing that Brahman can never be adequately represented promotes respect for the variety of ways in which It is represented and worshipped."

which (1) is already covered on the webpage, (2) says nothing about "Most contemporary Hindus" purported response to being called polytheistic, namely "indifferent, to wrong, to offensive". Abecedare 05:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm that is correct...Very good job sniffing that out, I originally deleted it in request of it needing references. But the user was actully willing to go back and add not one but two references. But after reading both like you say they do not primarily assert the topic of what was trying to be included in the article. However let us not jump on the user for making this mistake.__Seadog ^♪ 05:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Magicalsaumy, I hope you don't read my comment as biting ! I do not agree with this particular edit, but do assume good faith. Abecedare 06:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I meant to add it like describing a subjective thing objectively, which is certainly allowed. Otherwise on Wikipedia no psychology article should be allowed, because that's what psychology is all about: studying a subjective thing (mind/psyche) objectively. Cygnus_hansa 06:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with this, but I object to any sort of implication in Wikipedia's voice that polytheism is in any way inferior to monotheism, or incapable of concepts like "supreme reality". Most of this debate is actually more offensive to polytheism in general than to Hinduism. dab (𒁳) 13:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

About.com

Also is "about.com" considered a RS source on wikipedia ? My reading is that it is not and should be removed too, but since I am not sure of this I'll wait for other editors' input. Abecedare 05:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes defiantly wait for other editors opinions since it would be nonsensical to delete many refs. I have actually found myself at the site before but I am unsure about it also basically since Its been a while since I have been.__Seadog ^♪ 06:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

About.com is reliable. Its not partisan in any way, and is run by the new york times, another reliable source.Bakaman 17:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks for the input. I just realized that I was mixing up about.com and answers.com. Abecedare 18:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Answers is a wikipedia mirror, I think.Bakaman 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits

As I had indicated sometime ago, I have made several bold edits to make the article more encyclopedic and understandable to international viewers (not just observant Hindus). I have provided sufficient references, but I regret that the total quantity of edits is not conveniently possible to list here on the talk page. I will continue to make more edits, especially in the scriptures section. Cygnus_hansa 10:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck.__Seadog ^♪ 12:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

questing

Hello i got a question, in the the is stands: "Brahman is the Absolute Truth: it is pure existence, In this sense, the attributeless Brahman is called Parabrahman,

It is the supreme bliss. Parabrahman does not exist

nothing in the universe truly exists except Parabrahman". If you read it says brahman is pure existance and braham is called "parabrahman" AND "parabrahman" aperantly doesn't exist, So i got a questin what is the sensce in that to belive in a god like dosen't exist...?

it can also be that is only i like being stupid.

well i will be happy if you can anserw my questing pritty quick.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cxw cs (talk • contribs) 09:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

God certainly exists according to Hindu belief in the pragmatic level of truth. He is the image of Brahman. Parabrahman is true in the transcendental level of truth, which is the highest, supreme level. And nothing other than Parabrahman can actually exists in this level. That is why we stress on the fact that Parabrahman is the very existence itself. If you say otherwise, it would mean that Parabrahman and something else and else exist together in the transcendental level. This cannot be true, since everything else is illisuin except Parabrahman. Cygnus_hansa 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose there is no mention of any thing like 'Parabrahman' in Badarayana's 'Brahma Sutra'. Beliefs belonging to a particular sect should not be taken as the true explanation in Hinduism. Aupmanyav 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

But there is, in the Upanishads and in Bhagavad Gita, which form the basis of Hindu faith. Cygnus_hansa 11:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Image at Hindu

Hi, all I was wondering whether editors can replace the image (i.e., Khajuraho at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu#Religion_for_the_common_Hindu with a non-sexual image? It gives the wrong impression about the article, religion for the common Hindu.

Thanks. Raj2004 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Gouranga updated the image. Thanks.

Raj2004 23:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

please update image

i have uploaded 'aum' in saffron (bhagva).please change the original black pic with this pic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:242px-Aum.svg.png I am unable to do it. Sarvabhaum 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the reason for that is the fact that the Aum is part of the Hinduism template, so you can't directly change it by editing the Hinduism article. You can disscuss changes on the talk page of the template.__Seadog ^♪ 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please consider that we never visualize 'Om' or the 'Swastika' in black or blue. It is always white, red, or yellow (chandan, abir, gulal). Aupmanyav 17:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Vedas

In English this sentence is awkward:

The Vedas are said to be eternal truths that were originally realized through deep meditation by ancient sages called Ṛiṣhis

since it uses the passive voice (one of my pet peeves, read my forthcoming book "The care and Feeding of Pet Peeves")

Since the reference for it specified swami vivekananda is the following sentence accurate

Swami Vivekananda believed that the vedas were eternal truths that the ancient sages called Rishis realized through deep meditation.

I ask because I like to replace passive voice construction whenver I find it.

TheRingess 00:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on the awkwardness of the first sentence. My suggestion:

"Swami Vivekananda called vedas eternal truths that the ancient sages (Rishis) realized through meditation."

Abecedare 02:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree also. — Seadog ^♪ 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you put it like "Most Hindus believe that....." and find a couple of more references. Adding Sw. Vivkanada would seem to imply that only "he" had these "weird" thoughts. Cygnus_hansa 02:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reference somewhere that supports the claim that the statement is accepted as true by most Hindus? Or did you mean that it is simply such a basic part of the Hindu canon as to be obvious? An average reader might not be able to tell the difference. It could also be,

"Swami Vivekananda, amongst others, called the vedas eternal..." TheRingess 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I see Cygnus's point. At the risk of returning to passive voice, we can say:

"The Vedas are considered to be eternal truths that ancient sages (Rishis) realized through meditation."

since we cannot simply state "The Vedas are eternal truths ..." but on the other hand Swami Vivekanand is unlikely to be the only one with this weird thought:-)
Note: I have also removed "the" from "the ancient sages". Abecedare 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Darn it, I do too. I guess it's exactly like the belief that the bible was not written by man. Well I'm out of ideas.TheRingess 05:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the "considered..." form, since it is actually a basic canon of Orthodox Hinduism and is considered by Hindus to be too obvious. Its not that only a few thinkers have given such "special thoughts". Cygnus_hansa 06:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the definition of Hindu dharma, what sets it apart from Sikhism and Jainism and Buddhism, is the authority of the vedas. Though certainly Vivekananda and other vedantins would stress this more than most Hindus. The Vedas, still, however, define Hinduism. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 14:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I just realized nobody had touched this yet. "Hindus revere the Vedas as eternal truths, revealed to ancient sages (Ṛṣhis) through meditation, every kalpa" is how i've put it. Comments/objections? I've removed the passive voice, and showed its pervasiveness in Hindu philosophy. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 18:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, as note to the editors who are savvy with romanizing, Ṛṣhis must not be spelled Ṛiṣhis just Kṛṣṇa must not be spelled Kṛiṣṇa; 'ṛ' is an akshara (like a vowel) and 'i' is another akshara and cannot be added to 'ṛ'. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 18:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And here is a mistake that I made: ṣ is already a strong "sh" sound, and should not have a following h; I will correct this. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 18:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism Barnstar Proposal

For of those of you who are not aware, there is a discussion over which design should be used for the Hinduism barnstar (there already seems to be consensus that we need the barnstar). The first/original barnstar with the green and white Aum was introduced by User:Srkris. The other two with yellow and red Oms were created by Priyanath. Any input is appreciated. Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are some words bolded in the text?

1. There are instances where a proper noun such as Brahman which, in addition to being italicised (since it is a non-English word) are also bolded in various places in the article (e.g., in the lead paragraph). Further, the word Brahman is arbitrarily bolded in the section 'God and the soul': in some places it is bolded, in others its not; in some places the word is italicised, in others it is not italicised. May I know why it is bolded in the random places where it is bolded? And why there is inconsistency in the italicisation of the word?
2. Under the section 'Etymology', it is mentioned that "the Persian term Hindu is derived...". When highlighting a certain word or concept as a term, as we do here, to my understanding it is done as follows -- 'Hindu' -- rather than by bolding the word (but I could be wrong -- its just that I've never or very very rarely seen words being bolded in text unless the author is intending to emphasise an important point made).
3. Under the 'Ishvara' subsection, 'Supreme Lord' is bolded. Why?

These are my observations when skimming through the article, and I thought it would be fruitful to discuss these here. Cheers, AppleJuggler 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

None of these words should be bolded per WP:MoS. Feel free to unbold them. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed some but I am not sure if I removed it all. — Seadog 03:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I bolded te texts, simce I was not aware of the wikipolicy. But I'd support italicizing Sanskrit loanwords, which is almost a sacred style of print matter wherever non-native English words come up (cf. Webster's New World Dictionary)Cygnus_hansa 12:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion: It would be good if varied sources are also used to cite concepts

Sometimes, it may be useful to be cite varied sources (e.g., likely a non-Hindu sage/guru/follower's writing, such as an academic source) to support conceptual statements (in addition to/as supplement to sources linked to Hindu organisations or people who are Hindu sages etc. -- the reason for this is obvious). AppleJuggler 03:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good intentions do not always give good results. How can you distinguish between a Non-Hindu neutral source and malice one? It would be subjective. Very recently we had enthusiastic people trying to promote some Prof.Ninan whose intentions I feel are malice. Wish that you see last 10-15 days discussion. swadhyayee 03:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have altered the heading of this to better reflect what I should mean. I understand that you have people who could have malicious intent in their writings. We should use our best judgement to sift out who is being impartial and who is partial. There is no other way than this. My point is, let us, if possible, cite academic articles as well as publications by religious bodies. I did not mean to say that we should NOT use the works of religiously affiliated or widely-respected religious authorities. If we have a broad range of sources that we draw from, the reader of this article might, for example, think, "Hmm... not bad. They have referred to a broad range sources -- academic and religious books, articles, journals -- the chances are high that this article is an impartial and unbiased account of Hinduism." I hope that you understand the basis of my suggestion (i.e., principles of broad scholarship in writing an article, reliability, impartiality and objectivity). Just trying to help make this a good encyclopedia article in the little ways that I can, folks. Cheers, AppleJuggler 03:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Some information I read from an academic book - which may be cited in this article

Following my comment above (on using varied sources to cite statements), I came across the following paragraph while reading an academic book on conversion. Perhaps someone can paraphrase this paragraph (don't plagiarise) to give more meat to the 'Conversion' section, or even other more general sections of the Hinduism Wiki. I type, for your reading, the following paragraphs from a chapter by Gabriel, T. 2006. Conversion from Hinduism and Sikhism to Christianity in India. Pp. 216-238 in C. Partridge and H. Reid, Finding and Losing Faith: Studies in Conversion. Milton Keynes, UK; Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Press:

Pages 216 and 217:

Pages 217 and 218:

Cheers, AppleJuggler 03:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Great work, AppleJuggler ! I think as per the text you cite we should cover conversion both to and from Hinduism; and also highlight Hinduism's history of absorbing teachings from other belief systems (Buddhism and Jainsism being prime examples) and expanding its pantheon to accomodate other prophets/Gods. Why don't you go ahead and edit the Conversion (and other) section along the lines you suggest ?

I also whole-heartedly support your effort to add academic sources to the main page. I too will try to help in that direction in the upcoming weeks. Abecedare 04:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ishavasya Upanishad says, 'In darkness are those who worship the manifest, and in greater darkness are those who worship the unmanifest'. Hindus who say in 'Advaita', 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman), 'Tat twam asi' (That is what you are), So'ham (I am that), 'Shivo'ham' (I am the eternal), 'Sarva Khalvidam Brahma' (All creation is Brahman), do not need to worship a God. This means that neither one should worship Jesus (manifest), nor God (unmanifest). Would Jesus and the Christians be comfortable with that? Do not expect to trip a hindu with such silly tricks. Of course, anyone who says with his mind and heart, that he/she is a hindu, is certainly one. It is a question of personal belief and acceptance of 'dharma' (responsible action for family and society).

Cheers, MangoJuggler (Aupmanyav 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC))

I like your exposition there, a very interesting perspective of the religion that I've not really thought about. Thank you for that. A question though: your remark -- "Do not expect to trip a hindu with such silly tricks." -- was that directed to me? AppleJuggler 02:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not an evangelist's website. Why should anyone be discussing conversion from hinduism to christianity and what is the need for a hindu to do so, leaving his more than 9,000 years of heritage, and in what way and why here christians should claim any superiority over hinduism. Hindus or the Indian constitution do not bar anyone to profess any faith or philosophy he may want to. Hindus are not impressed by big names, VR Krishna Iyer, Radhakrishnan, Gandhi, Aurobindo, Vivekananda, when it comes to a discussion. Each person has the same right to hold his or her views as any of these luminaries. A hindu would not hesitate to contest the views of even a great acharya of hinduism, what to talk of these people, if his/her views are different. Why should anyone write about something that he/she does not know about, first get the information, you are welcome to it. Aupmanyav 18:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Old, featured version of Hinduism article

This was the version of the article of few days after it became featured. I brought this up so the current batch of editors keen to make it featured once again can look at how it once was. For obvious reasons, this version won't be featured now but it would be a good idea to take out anything (not necessarily info, maybe structure or prose) valuable from the old version and shove it the current one. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Gizzaji, very nice idea showing us that. I am very impressed by the structure of that article as well as the use of quoting. I particularly like this section. Perhaps we should 'steal'. As I found the most appeal in the structure, perhaps we could compare the ToC of the old page to this one? ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes the purpose of bringing the old version was to "steal" parts of it. Some sentences that we are arguing about (eg. the Hinduism is not polythestic one above) are written better in this version Contrary to popular belief, practiced Hinduism is neither polytheistic nor strictly monotheistic. I also like how it is made clear that Vaishnav don't only Vishnu but regard him as the Supreme God (same thing for Shaivites and Shakti worshippers). The article now sounds as if Vishnu wit his avatars, Shiva and Shakti are the only deities worshipped by Hindus in their respective denominations. But where does that leave Ganesha, Lakshmi, Murugan, Ganga, Saraswati, Hanuman and even Surya?

The main thing I don't like with the old version is that there is too much emphasis on the six philosophies. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be there but it isn't as well known in modern Hinduism as it was about 1000 years ago.

Btw, please don't call me "Gizzaji." I'm sure that you are much older than me. I'm only a bachcha! Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar Shri Seadogji, and Shri Gizzaji. I do like the phrasing of that sentence you are referring to, and with a little refinement, I'd like to use that. As far as the denominations go, I had no idea that the article as it is was portraying the sectarian divisions as such; certainly both shaivites and vaishnavites must revere Shri Hanuman. I was very happy to see Karttikeya on your list, but I'm sure you know that outside of Shaiva Siddantha school, there is very little knowledge or reverence of him. As for the use of "ji", we are all contributers to Wikipedia, where all editors should be awarded equal respect, and even if not, both of you certainly have more seniority and experience here; this is not grhastha dharma, besides, even my great grand father who was a colonel of the Indian army at Kashmir would call me with 'ji'. Keep in mind: चैतन्यमात्मा caitanyamaatmaa (Shiva Sutras, first awakening, first sutra). I will leave it up to you to learn the meaning of this mantra.

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 20:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality on the Varnas/Caste section

Why is the Caste section POV disputed. I can't seem to find anything wrong, can anybody give some details as to why so we can fix this problem. — Seadog 20:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

'experience the Divinity that is everywhere'

What divinity? For an 'advaitist', there is no divinity. It is brahman, and there is no reason to call brahman divine. It is all the same everywhere. There is nothing undivine. So the question of the difference divine/undivine does not arise. It is only a hang-over from the unenlightened days. Aupmanyav 04:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern vs. Old, Orthodox vs. Unorthodox

I do not think there is anything old or modern, or orthodox or unorthodox in Hinduism. The 'Nasadeeya Sukta' said that the Gods came after the creation of the universe some 5,000 years ago. I believe the same in this 21st Century. Hinduism is a flowing river, philosophies come, philosophies prosper, philosophies become redundant, and arise again, all the time. Kanada theorised an atomic world in his Vaisesika Darshana more than 2000 years ago. I believe the same. In the interregnum there have been people who have searched and found God/Gods, they still do. There are others who still find solace in their village Gods as they used to do perhaps in stone age and sacrifice animals for them. I cannot claim that I am right and they are wrong. I have no such right or proof. Again, it is their truth and their tradition. Where do you put your finger? Aupmanyav 06:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

But I don't believe in your mythology! Cygnus_hansa 11:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is mythology in what I have written? Nasadeeya Sukta is a part of RigVeda, Vaisesika is one of the Astik Darshanas, and villagers still go by what their Ojhas (witch doctors) say and offer animal sacrifice. Aupmanyav 13:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with English

Quoted from above:

DaGizza, we hindus are idol worshippers, we cremate our dead, we worship many Gods and some times even none. If any westerner does not like it, it is his/her problem. Should we be ashamed to own that we worship idols? Are we going to say to endear ourselves to westerners that we are not idol worshippers? At another time, Cygnus has been insisting on saying that hinduism is a monotheistic religion, which has been discussed many times in this page and rejected. The challenge still stands. If Cygnus is so ashamed of these things, he should probably join one of the Abrahamic religionsand rest in peace, in life and in death. I am ashamed to know of a hindu (is he one?) with such ideas. Still with the colonial mind set, trying to please his western masters? What else we should say to endear ourselves to the westerners? That Jesus is the tenth and the last avatara of Lord Vishnu? Aupmanyav 17:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

औप्मान्यव जी, आपके साथ बहुत भारी समस्या है । मैं और आप एकदम उल्टे हैं । आप हिन्दू को एक ethnic शब्द मानते है और मैं उसे faith-based मानता हूँ । आप उन बेवकूफ़ हिन्दुत्ववादियों की नुमाइन्दगी करते हैं जो कुएँ के मेंढक हैं और कुएँ के मेंढक ही बने रहना चाहते हैं । पहले तो आपको हिन्दू धर्म के बारे में कुछ मालूम नहीं है, ऊपर से आप वाहियात परीकथाओं में विश्वास करते हैं । आप बहुदेवतावाद और मूर्तिपूजा से ऐसी मुहब्बत क्यों करते हैं? ओह्ह्ह्ह्ह्ह्ह, मुझे बूझने दीजिये । क्योंकि ये आपको इब्राहिमी धर्मों से अलग बनाता है । यही तो मुश्किल है हिन्दुत्ववादियों के साथ । वो उन चीज़ों को हो हल्ला मचाकर पेश करते हैं जो उनको अलग ethnicity देती हैं चाहे वो कितनी भी ग़लत क्यों न हों । इन कुएँ के मेंढकों को इब्राहिमी धर्मों से नफ़रत है । और नफ़रत ही इनकी बेबुनियाद मान्यताओं की नींव है । मैं "born Hindu is a Hindu" को नहीं मानता । मेरे हिसाब से जिनको हिन्दू धर्म के सिद्धांतों मे यकीन नहीं है उन्हें ख़ुद को हिन्दू कहने का कोई हक़ नहीं । वो अपने आप को ज़बरदस्ती हिन्दू धर्म के साथ जोडे रखते हैं क्योंकि उनके हिसाब से वो कुछ और कर नहीं सकते -- क्योंकि वो हिन्दू "पैदा" हुए हैं । अपनी पैदाइश की चीज़ की रक्षा करना उनका धर्म है : और इसके लिये वो उन्हीं चीज़ों को बढा चढा कर पेश करेंगे जो अनको "विदेशी" धर्मों से अलग बनाती हैं । रही बात मेरी : तो मैं हिन्दू पैदा हुआ था , लेकिन मैं साथ ही साथ पसन्द से भी हिन्दू हूँ । ये इसलिये क्योंकि मैं न्याय-वैशेषिक और अद्वैत दर्शनों को काफ़ी हद तक मानता हूँ और वेद-उपनिषदों पर आधारित हिन्दू विश्वासों को आदर देता हूँ -- Orthodox Hindu faith । मैं आपकी तरह नाममात्र हिन्दू नहीँ हूँ क्योंकि मैं इसमें पैदा हुआ था कुछ लोग ऐसा सोचते हैं कि क्योंकि वो हिन्दू धर्म में पैदा हुए थे और "विदेशी धर्मों में जाना गुनाह होगा" -- इसलिये हिन्दू बने रहो और उसे जितना हो सके, अपने को अलग साबित करने की कोशिश करते रहो -- मगर मैं ऐसा नहीं मानता । मैं आपकी तरह ढोंग ढकोसला नहीं करता । मुझे देवताओं में यकीन नहीं है क्योंकि वो मेरे नज़रिये से मेल नहीं खाते । उपनिषदों में परमात्मा का ही गुणगान हुआ है और ऐसा कहीं नहीं लिखा कि जो देवताओं में मान्यता नहीं रखते वो "हिन्दू" नहीं हैं । इसलिये मैं मन्दिर कम ही जाता हूँ । आप एकदम उल्टे हैं । आपको परमेश्वर या उसके अस्तित्व पर यकीन नहीं है (क्योंकि आख़िरकार ये सब तो इब्राइमी धर्मोँ की मान्यताएँ हैं ना, इनका हिन्दू धर्म से कोई लेना देना थोड़े हि है! छि छि) ; इसलिये आपको देवताओं पर भी यकीन नहीं है । फ़िर भी आप राम-कृष्ण की पूजा करते हैं क्योंकि वो आपके कल्चरल हीरोस हैं : यानि कि आप शुद्ध ढकोसला करते हैं । हाँ, इस तरह का बहुदेवतावाद और मूर्तिपूजा (ढोंग) आपको बेहद पसन्द ज़रूर है क्योंकि ये आपको "अलग" साबित करता है । और ये आपके यहाँ तक पसन्द है कि आप वेद, परमेश्वर, परमात्मा, ब्रह्म, उपनिषद, सबको हिन्दू धर्म से बाहर फ़ेंक देना चाहते हैं और गाँव के अनपढ़ हिन्दुओं के रीति रिवाज़ों को ही शुद्ध हिदू धर्म मानते हैं । अब बात आई बहुदेवतावाद की : इसमें कोई गड़बड़ी नहीं है । मैं शुद्ध बहुदेवतावाद को भी हिन्दू धर्म का एक हिस्सा मानता हूँ : पर क्यों? क्योंकि ये एक आस्तिक दर्शन : मीमांसा पर आधारित है । मीमांसा के अपने तर्क हैं : fine with me, except that I found other logics to be better. और अगर आपने नोट न किया हो, तो मैंने ख़ुद ही देवताओं वाले भाग में आदर के साथ ये टिप्पणी डाली है । स्वाध्यायी के साथ समस्या "अँग्रेज़ी भाषा" और semantics की थी, और भाषा के मामले में मैं बहुत particular हूँ । मुझे आपके जवाब का इंतज़ार होगा । An English translation of the preceding Hindi message can be requested from me, if needed. Cygnus_hansa 14:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think some un-necessary heat is generating out of personal attacks. I think Aupmanyav and Magicalsaumy both are right in part of their thinking. I don't think, Aupmanyav is supporting village Hindu traditions. There is too much of personal attack by Magicalsaumy in response to some attack from Aupmanyav. My earnest request to both these editors will be to strike out statements of personal attacks. Now, you both know each others view, my request to you would be to pl. strike out sentences of personal attacks.

I do not have context of the differences between them. I can see use of some Urdu like words by Magicalsaumy, however I am not in touch with scholarly words of Hindi. I can see hate in initial three sentences for Hindu believers. Any Hindu has some or other attachments to some or other Devtas and idol worship. Baring Dayanand Saraswati, I have not seen Hindu sages against idol worship. Idol worship is a science. For concentration, one needs an object. For sublimation of individual virtues, one need a form which can be seen possessing all virtues and the same would be possible through personification of God. Pandurang Shashtri used to give an analogy that if smoking gives strength to a smoker and so the smoker smokes, so what is wrong if a person believes in idol worship if the same give strength, hopes, sense of justice etc. to a person. My counter question to you Magicalsaumy would be, why do you hate Devta believers and idol worshippers? What gives you right to form a POV that those who do not believe in Hindu principles is not a Hindu? Even the sages have not claimed what you claim. I dis-agree with you that anyone can attempt to improve the image of Hinduism by super-imposing non-existing things. I think, there could hardly be anything which is not thought of thoroughly in Vedas. Magicalsaumy, you claim to honour/revere Hindu beliefs expounded in Vedas/Upnishads and simultaneously abhor idol worship and consider Ram & Krishna as cultural heroes than incarnation of God. I am sorry but I fail to understand your Hindu string. There could be no hate for other beliefs in any Hindu.

With due apology, if the knowledge generate hate in any one against others, the knowledge deserves to be cremated as per Hindu belief. Hope you know it. Pl. bear with me to be frank. swadhyayee 15:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Swadhyayee, I am NOT against polytheism or idol worship. It is very much a part of Hinduism and my last three sentences should have made it clear. I respect all personal beliefs. I am only against Aupmanyav, who is trying to push Hinduism only in one direction (i.e., his personal interpretation). I respect his belief, which is also mine, that Hinduism is a flowing river of thoughts, too wide and diverse to be bound. But my point is that there is also a sense of unity which causes the harmony: and that unity is in the basis, which is Vedas. And Aupmanyav simply gets p***ed off whenever I try to make that point. My belief is that Hinduism thoughts should be taken by its philosophy (and I recognize ALL points which can come under it). Aupmanyav (and yours probably) is that the beliefs should be based on what illiterate villages have been doing so far. And idolatry has no basis in the Vedas: no idols, no temples, no icons have been mentioned. The only ceremonies were the fire-sacrifices. But still I respect anyone's belief, because Hinduism is broad and diverse. I am just against some people actually trying to uproot the basis itself and trying to call what is left Hinduism. And again, I don't consider Ram/Krishna as only cultural heroes, it is Aupmanyav who does that: this was a misreading on your part. And this is a talk page and I have freedom to express what I believe. And you actually missed the main point: that I am very particular about language, its semantics, meanings and connotations; and I have even done a PhD level course in linguistics and will do another course next semester in Historical Linguistics, whereas I guess you have never studied linguistics. So you actually are not able to grasp what I am talking about. When concepts from one language get translated from another, the whole thing comes under purview of linguistics. That is why my stress in using direct Sanskrit words, with approximate meanings in brackets, rather than British-given terms.Cygnus_hansa 16:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Magicalsaumy, I share your views (that does not include your views about Aupmanyev, I have no observation). I also appreciate that you are linguistic scholar. No, I have not missed any of your last sentences. I just did not feel of commenting upon them. Neither of us rely upon villagers' Hinduism traditions. My knowledge is based on my exposure to Srimad Bhagawad Geeta. Again, Sanskrut has never been my subject. I have read Jnaneshwari & commentry by Shankaracharya. I do not know that while you tell that idol worship is not mentioned in Vedas whether the same exists there or not. I don't think, whether you can claim to have studied all 4 Vedas which is probably humanly impossible. Yet, I think, Lord Krishna in Geeta advocates to worship God. I am not a scholar and can't provide citations off hand. I do agree that you have freedom to express on talk pages but I don't think, talk pages are meant for personal attacks. Pl. read your comments peacefully some other time and see how much could you have avoided? In your comments you have attacked all Hindutvavadis. What is Hindutvavadi would be subjective. Are you referring to staunch Bajarang Dal or R.S.S. like political groups? Good, that you are Ph.D. in linguistic, with such qualification, you should be friend, philosopher and guide to others and not out to bite others. Hope you will appreciate my comments. You are a student, so still young. If, your study give you irritation towards others, you will lose your peace. If, you are Ph.D. in linguistic, you are our elder brother though I have crossed fifties. My whole hearted wishes to you to be friend, philosopher and guide to the world around. My last request to you would be, since you are online, pl. strike out your personal attack comments to Aupmanyav. swadhyayee 16:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I second swadhyayee on the unnecessary incivility of this debate. I think it helps if one is familiar with basic wikipedia policies and guidelines in this regard, namely, No personal attacks, Be Civil and Assume Good Faith. Also it would help if everyone followed these talk page guidelines (see in particular, 'Be concise', 'Use English', 'Don't change your text' and 'Stay objective') and realized that the Hinduism page is not owned by any one editor, viewpoint or even by 'Hindus' collectively. Abecedare 17:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I will third that, please be civil and No personal attacks. This will get us nowhere. — Seadog 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Magicalsaumy|Cygnus_Hansa, I do not have hindi fonts on my computer at present, otherwise I would have replied to you in the language that you have used. Further more, it is late in night today, so expect my reply tomorrow. What I would like to say that I am a hindu, close to the roots, whereas you seem to me like a laboratory produced synthetic hindu. The latter are many a times more vocal but there are more like me in India. Lastly, there was no need to use Hindi here since you have an English translation of the post, that would have been understood by everybody here. You are a linguist, you say you are very particular about language, my grandfather also was (did I tell you about that, he wrote the latest smriti, Vishweshwarasmriti, in 1947 with 8,000 verses, of course, Sanskrit), but you should not have made a mishmash of Hindi, Urdu, and English words in the message. If it was Hindi, it should have been good Hindi. What you wrote would get you a d-grade in an examination. Clearly Hindi is not your mother toungue. Aupmanyav 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly regret having made personal attacks, but I just couldn't help it. You can understand, I spent 2 hours typing in Devanagari on such a day when the immediate next week is that of the final examinations. This certainly means that I felt compelled to do so. This also means that I'll be mostly not commenting here till my exams end. Cygnus_hansa 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

'claim to honour/revere hindu beliefs expounded in Vedas/Upnishads and simultaneously abhor idol worship and consider Ram & Krishna as cultural heroes than incarnation of God.' Aupmanyav 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, what Magicalsaumy says here is correct. It is my personal view. (1) I do honor the beliefs expounded in Vedas/Upanishads (2) I do not abhor idol worship. That is Magicalsaumy's view. My view is that idol worship has been a part of hinduism since times immemorial, a majority of hindus worship idols, there should be no shame or guilt in accepting that before the westerners, there is no need to camoflage the fact, it helps the mind to concentrate on one thing. (3) I am an atheist, brahmavadin. Even if I do not consider Rama and Krishna as Gods, they are very close to me because I believe that the idea of Rama and Krishna unites all hindus and gives them strength in time of distress. But I do not mix my personal views with what is to be presented in Wikipedia. That is why you find me, an atheist, championing the cause of idol worship and polytheism. I do this because that is what majority of hindus do that and at one time, I also used to do. I hope people will understand this. Aupmanyav 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aupmanyav (talk • contribs) 03:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

The bot does not understand that Aupmanyav has never given an unsigned message. Aupmanyav 03:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very very much Magicalsaumy for spontaneous response to my request. If, I am not asking more, will you pl. consider whether "मैं आपकी तरह नाममात्र हिन्दू नहीँ हूँ क्योंकि मैं इसमें पैदा हुआ था और "विदेशी धर्मों में जाना गुनाह होगा"" could also be striked out and sentence beginning from "आपको परमेश्वर या उसके अस्तित्व पर यकीन नहीं है...." could be modified suitably? Thanks once again for your co-operation. swadhyayee 04:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, An urge to you. Will you kindly re-check your comments to Magicalsaumy and strike out personal attacks? Hope you will do me a favour. swadhyayee 04:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The second request Swadhyayee has made, I cannot undo because Aupmanyav has already made a confession in the favor of it. Cygnus_hansa 06:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cygnus_Hansa, I am not against it and I am not very quick with computers. There are other things at home as well (last night it was my grand-daughters eleventh birthday, we returned home only at 12 in the night). But in defference to Swadhyayee's wishes and as an atonement to the anguish that it may have caused to you, I have crossed out the offending portion. Aupmanyav 06:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much both - Magicalsaumy and Aupmanyavji for this favour of yours to me. Thank you very very much once again. Aupmanyavji, Pl. convey my belated compliments to your grand-daughter. swadhyayee 09:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

-o-o-o-

I am replying to Magicalsaumy's post. I have traslated Magicalsaumy's comments from Hindi to English, they are followed by my comments. If Magicalsaumy has any major complaint about the translation, he could point it out. I have not replied to those portions which he has already crossed out.

Aupmanyav ji, there is a great problem with you

Dear friend, that is your view point, there could be other view points where the problem could reside with you.

We are exactly opposite of each other.

We should respect our differences.

You consider hindu as an ethnic word and I consider it faith-based

hinduism is both, ethic as well as faith-based, or more exactly reason-based, otherwise there was no need for debates, as in Upanishads, and in various bhashyas.

Why do you love polytheism or idol worship

as for my personal belief, I am an atheist, I do not worship even one God what to talk of many. Consequently idols do not mean much for me. But then, I still consider myself as a hindu, so I would not belittle the beliefs of my co-religionists like you do. If they are polytheistic or idol worshippers, I respect their right to be so.

Because this makes you different from the Abrahamic religions

of course, my belief is different from those of Abrahamic religions, but it is not only this, there are other reasons as well. It would takes a few books if I mention all differences, but I would mention a few. Hinduism has freedom of religious belief, moksha in hinduism is not granted through a sole agent as in christianity, hinduism does not hate other religionists and would not want them to be either converted or killed as in christianity and islam.

There is this problem with hindutvavadis

first thing I am not a hindutvavadi, though I support BJP. I do not see any problem with people thinking about their religion with pride, especially if it is something like hinduism.

They present those things with with a lot of hullabaloo which gives them ethnicity

it does not apply to me firstly because I am not a hindutvavadi. That is how religions strengthen the belief of their adherents, otherwise why do christians, muslims, jains, and sikhs come up with religious processions.

I do not consider a born hindu as a hindu

that is your view. I would consider a born hindu as a hindu till the time that he renounces his religion.

In my view those who do not understand the principles of hinduism, should not call themselves hindus

It is not for everyone to understand all principles of hinduism. You need a life-time of study to do that. Similarly all christians or muslims or adherents of any other religion do not understand the minute details and philosophies of their religion. That is why you have theologists and maulanas who give out fatawas. Otherwise there would not have been any need for them.

They keep themselves attached to hinduism because they cannot do anything else, because they were born hindus

What if they are satisfied with the things as they are, why should they do anything. If anybody has problems with hinduism, he/she can leave the fold instantly, the Indian constitution gives them this freedom.

Their religion is to save the ideology they were born in

I do not see anything wrong with it. Hinduism will be saved or developed by hindus only, the christians or muslims will not do thisfor us.

For this they exaggerate things which make them different from foreign religions

some exaggeration cannot always be avoided, but there are solid differences.

As for me, I was born a hindu and my liking also is hindu

That is fine, it is the same with me also, it can be the same with other people also, why do you deny that and on what basis.

This is because I accept nyaya-vaisheshik and advaita to a great extent

well, thanks, that is great, what about Samkhya, Yoga, Poorva Mimamsa, and Uttara Mimamsa?.

And I respect hindu beliefs based on Veda-Upanishads

You don't. Ishavasya says you should neither worship manifest nor the unmanifest, how come you believe in a God and only in one God? As I have already mentions the second verse of the first hymn of the first chapter of the first mandala of RigVeda asks Agni to come with all Gods to a yagna.

Orthodox hindu faith

I have started a topic on this page about orthodox/unorthodox in hindu faith, nobody has posted in it till now, kindly say something there.

Some people think that since they were born in hinduism, accepting foreign religions will be a sin

Is it your invitation to people to accept foreign religions? Hinduism has no such stipulation. It would not like a person who does not believe in its philosophies to remain a hindu.

So remain a hindu and as far as possible, try to prove yourself different, but I do not believe this

You are welcome to your views. But how do you presume that those people who think that hinduism and Abrahamic religions have differences are actually hinduism haters?.

I do not engage in hypocrysy

why do you think that except for youself all others are hypocratic?.

I do not believe in lesser Gods because that does not go with my belief

Again, you are welcome to your views, but why should all hindus have your kind of views? I do not believe in any Gods, major or lesser, does that mean that everybody including yourself should have my kind of views.

The upanishads also sing praises of 'paramatma' and they have not written that those who do not believe in lesser Gods are not hindus

Upanishads were also written by humans. They had their views. That does not bar you from having different views. There are more than 108 Upanishads. All these do not speak in one voice. Think about Ishavasya Upanishad, mentioned earlier in this post, as to what should not be worshipped. Actually there is no bar at present also for someone to write a new Upanishad.

Therefore, I visit temples infrequently

then why do you go at all, same here but I go there to venerate the heroes and heroines of my culture, Rama, Krishna, Durga, Ganesha, Hanuman, etc..

You are completely the reverse

respect differences, munde munde matirbhinna, vipra bahudha vadanti.

You do not believe in 'Parameshwar' or its existence

yes, I do not believe in such a God, I believe in a Nirguna Brahman.

Because these are after all beliefs of Abrahamic religions

that is not correct, there are many variations of belief in hinduism, polytheists, dualists, monists, all believe in God, and I respect their belief. How does it matter if my personal beliefs are different.

Even then you worship Rama and Krishna because they are heroes of your culture, therefore, you engage in true hypocrasy

No, it is not like that. I worship Rama and Krishna and others with all my heart, because they have given identity to hindu religion and hindu culture. I also worship Chandrashekhar Azad, Rama Prasad Bismil, Shachindra Lahiri, and Ashfaq Ullah Khan, etc. because they gave their life for my country. There is no hypocrasy in this.

Yes, you like in engaging in hypocrasy of worshipping many Gods or idol worship because it proves you different from others

I have already mentioned that we are truly different from others. I worship my cultural heroes and the best thing is to have their idols or images. We have them in our Puja room and also on my computer. Why should you presume hypocrasy where there is none.

And you like to this extent that you would want to throw out Vedas, Parameshwar, Paramatma, Brahman, Upanishads from hindu religion

I would not like any such thing, I believe in the wisdom of Vedas and Upanishads, but do not believe them to be God-created like Quran, they were also written by men, but very wise men. You have included Brahman in the list. Yes, I do believe in a universal substrate which we call Brahman, but as one Upanishad mentioned, Brahman is nothing to be worshipped but to be understood. My views are in total consonence with my scriptures.

Now we come to polytheism, there is nothing wrong with it

You have been the most active in proving that hinduism is a monotheistic faith, how come you say now that there is nothing wrong with polytheism. If it was so why did you differ with me all this time? You accused me of supporting polytheism in the beginning of this very post.

But why, because this is based on an astik philosophy, Mimamsa

Hinduism has accepted Nireeshwar Samkhya also as an astik philosophy, it is one of the six.

Mimamsa has its own logic: Fine with me, except that I found other logics to be better

Of course, all Darshanas have their own logic, one is different from the other, you found some other to be better, I found some other to be better, but these are our personal beliefs, and hinduism does not interfere in this. Hinduism does not interfere even if you come up with a totally new logic. At the time Adi Sankara came up with his philosophy, it was new. When Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva, Sri Nimbarka, Sri Chaitanya, or Sri Vallabha, or any of the Shaiva or Shakta acharyas, Matsyendranatha, Gorakshanatha, etc. came up with their philosophies, it was new. Hinduism does not hate what is new.

If you have not noted, I have posted even in the Gods section in Buddhism with respect

You have done all that, but you have no respect for different beliefs of your own religion. As for me, I never visit any page apart from hinduism related pages, I have found what I was seeking in hinduism and have rejected all other religious beliefs after going through them.

With Swadhyayee, it is the problem of English language and Semantics

Oh yes, you have mentioned it many times.

And regarding language I am very particular

You don't seem to be with your cocktail of Hindi, Urdu, and English.

I will wait for your reply

I would not disappoint you any more, here is it.

Basically, Cygnus, you are young, immature, and confused. I have heard a quote somewhere that wisdom does not come before the age of 40 (barring, of course, exceptions and prodigies like Adi Sankara or Sant Jnaneshwar) and I have found it to be true. You have a lot to learn, and if you are receptive, you will learn. With best regards. Aupmanyav 10:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I expect apologies of Aupmanyavji for changing the text in a way that it would be better. I began as Aupmanyavji had put initial few words in capital. Aupmanyavji, using capital letters on internet means the writer is angry. I tried to change them to small letters as I am sure Aupmanyavji did not wish to exhibit his anger. I tried to make it better and probably has made it distracting a lot. I just tried to seperate translation from replies of Aupmanyavji. If Aupmanyavji, you want to remove my changes, you can use pop-up and in one mouse stroke, you can replace to your original one. If, you want me to bring it back to your original, pl. let me know on my talk page and I will do so. My apologies to all.

swadhyayee 14:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No apologies required, you have only made it clearer. I do not have anger, which is a useless emotion. Thanks and Regards. Aupmanyav 18:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

note to all - Instead of long rants and counter-arguing and nonsense, why not add to the Mimamsa Sutra page? I created it three months back and am certain I made the only edit to that page. In fact all three of you (aupmanyav, cygnus, swadhyayee) should perhaps take some time off the main hinduism page and work on the other pages. Do you want one shaky tower (the main article)? or do you guys want a large and even educational experience on Hinduism? The fact is that the main article should link to a bunch of pages. Those pages, rather than the main article, should be improved on.Bakaman 01:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with you Baka. I feel there must be enough of interest generating ref. in this article to make the viewer go to other supplementary articles. swadhyayee 04:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Baka, I have been here for the last eight months and I have not been able to proceed more than two or three paragraphs in Hinduism or Hindu page. I suppose I would be able to go to the page on Mimamsa Sutra only in my next incarnation. The stumbling blocks for me have been 1. Hinduism is exclusively Vedic. 2. Hinduism is exclusively monotheistic. I am still at it. Aupmanyav 06:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Heaven and Hell

In the Article there is a subarticle on heaven and hell. I believe that this is giving the whole thing a an unneed Christian spin. Can someone please remove that and make the areticle even better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.198.48.71 (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

This is because of the use of words foreign to us, like Salvation. Salvation entails acceptance of Jesus as the son of God in christianity, without which you dont get it. It is not the case here. The westerners understand Nirvana, and Buddhists never substitute it with any other word, Moksha is sufficient or it could be Nirvana, a word which hindus also use. Aupmanyav 10:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I did not see this comment before restoring the deleted "Heaven and Hell" section. But I fail to see how saying the following puts a "Christian spin" on the issue:

The concepts of "Heaven" and "Hell" do not translate directly into Hinduism and reaching heaven is not necessarily considered the ultimate goal. This is because heaven and hell are believed to be temporary. The only thing that is considered eternal is divinity, which includes God as well as the ātman (the soul). Therefore the ultimate goal is to experience divinity.

Isn't the point of this wikipedia article to inform the reader, who may or may not be knowledgeable about the concept, about Hinduism ? And wouldn't a FAQ for such a reader be "Do Hindu's believe in Heaven and Hell" ? Of course, if you wish to improve this section based on reliable sources, you are welcome to do so, but I don't see how making the article less informative makes it better. Abecedare 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The closest thing to Heaven and Hell in Hinduism is Svarga and the place where Yama resides (I forgot the name!). But these are more mythological concepts rather than spiritual. Gizza^{Chat ©} 21:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

jhanam. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, in some philosophies, they divide into these three lokas: narakaloka, bhuloka, anataraloka: lower, gross, higher. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 22:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia says that Yam lives in Naraka, which might be the word I was after. Gizza^{Chat ©} 22:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think Swarga and Naraka are the closest analogous terms. However as Gizza said above, and the article also says, the matches are only approximate and the concepts are not as central to Hinduism. I am satisfied with the way the section exists now, and brought up the issue only because the anon. IP deleted it because he thought it projected a "christian spin".

Śaiva Sujīt: were you think of Jahannam ? Abecedare 00:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes; I am used to calling that concept "jahannam" because Kashmiris often borrow aurdu words. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 14:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sure Saiva_Suj and Abecedare are having a little fun and that they are not serious. Aupmanyav 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Svarga and Naraka are temporary in Hinduism, not eternal as in Abrahamic religions (except Judaism: there is no Hell there). That is the main difference.Cygnus_hansa 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an important philosophical point: some philosophies have 7 taalas below the 7 chakras. So, just as people ascend upwards from muladhara and out through brahmarandhra, some souls fall downwards, leading ultimately to malice. However, it is important to note that in this philosophy one will still ultimately leave through brahmarandhra (or brumadhya or kantha).

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 14:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternate name, Patalloka. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 14:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Note, in samkhya, there are three worlds: pure, impure and the pure-and-impure worlds. However, none of these are Hell. Impure world is where we live; pure-and-impure world is world of stars and planets; pure world is antariksha world (heaven). ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 14:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviving discussion on brahman phrasing

Namaste. Please see this discussion, and let us conclude upon an agreed phrasing and title; both had been questioned, and discussed upon, but only philosophically, and without enough proposals on actual phrasing for the article. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 16:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My short suggestion: (1) The title can be changed to "Concept of God", (2) The leading sentence can be rephrased neutrally as "Hinduism is sometimes referred to as a polytheistic religion, but that is not true for all its schools of thought whose beliefs range from polytheism to monotheism, or even monism and atheism. For instance, Advaita Vedanta holds that there is One God, who however may appear to humans in multiple names and forms." (3) The sub-sections "Brahman", "Ishvara" etc should be greatly shortened and the details moved to a separate article. Abecedare 17:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the Brahman, Ishvara, Deva/Devi and Avatar sections should all be merged into one. A lot of the Ishvara and Deva/devi section actually overlap anyway. Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, please don't merge the sections. I'll try to remove the overlapping part soon. And the preceding reformulation is most welcome, provided you can put in brackets immediately after atheism "(those who consider Hinduism as ethnicity)". And again and again, there is no need to mention Advaitism. Even I am against mentioning is everywhere despite my inclination towards it. Cygnus_hansa 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Variation in Romanisation

Throughtout the article various spellings used for concepts, devas etc. Eg. Sometimes "Ishvara" is written in IAST - iśvara. There are many of these all over the article. We need to have a standard method of writing Hindu terms. I prefer removing the diacritics and symbols because most people don't understand them. Hence Purānas goes to Puranas, Ṛiṣhis (which is wrong anyway, it should be Ṛṣis) goes to Rishis, pūjā goes to puja. What does everyone think? Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Gizzaji, we tried it once and once I did heavy amount of work correcting. But new people come, don't read guidelines, and type texts in the easy way.Cygnus_hansa 02:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Once everyone agrees and a standard system is established, we'll convert all the words. If an anon uses or changes the transliteration, we'll revert it. Simple. First we must have a discussion on which transliteratoin scheme should be used. Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea. I think we can specify the pronunciation using IPA (or even IAST) the first time the term is used and then stick with a "standardized" spelling. Same goes for wikilinking the terms. Abecedare 02:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think IAST ( as learnt from DaGizza) would be more appropriate. That helps someone to learn the pronounciation. I am not knowing how to use these fonts but I will learn. I feel providing pronounciation of words from other language is essential. swadhyayee 04:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation is best specified by IPA, but there are many anti-IPA people here. So we might just go for IAST. Cygnus_hansa 07:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the possibilities are listed Here. The main two are IAST (example:Pāṇini) and simplified tranliteration, which are how most articles are named. These were the two types that I was talking about. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Inside the article, I prefer Iast. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) also provides useful formatting templates. As for article name such as Panini, i prefer some what simplied tranlisteration so that the user can just type in without accents and so on.--D-Boy 05:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying articles names have be in simplified but words inside articles should be IAST? That is almost how it is now. A third possibility is using informal transliteration, which would be most identifiable by the average Indian. Eg. Bhagavad Gita goes to Bhagavad Geeta and small "a"s are dropped off, so "Shiva" becomes "Shiv." However, as the name suggests it is informal so we can probably take it out of the equation. There is also ITRANS, where Gita becomes gItA! Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look in the third paragraph, puranas and ramayana are squares. This is easily corrected by using the IAST template {{IAST|puranas.... I just don't want the squares. Now for the article ex Pāṇini. I see sqaures at the very very top of that article (the title). I think the page should just be moved to Panini. that's all i'm saying.--D-Boy 08:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar. I would like to use the IAST (non simplified) transliterations. Each sanskrit mantra is very important, and we should do our very best to convey the most accurate sound possible in letters. I mentioned in one of the above discussions that Ṛṣi should not be Ṛiṣi. You can not have an i-vowel on the ṛ-vowel. However, after seeing the link provided by D-Boy, I can see why editors have been doing that. I am against the use of the simplified transliterations however. Perhaps, we should link to a pronunciation guide to the transliteration scheme we choose (I prefer IAST), or create one if it is not yet created. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 16:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You'd be interested in reading this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic)--D-Boy 11:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)