Talk:Hinduism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Merge Hindu Nationalism with Criticism?

This could help the length problem and even more importantly, help make table of contents shorter. It is definitely something that is criticised and their is quite a few arguments against those criticisms too. At the same time, their is a chance that it would end up being longer. I can make a sandbox for it and post here if people want me to spend effort on it. Feedback please. Also, constructive criticism on what more can be cut back on would be helpful. I already feel very bad about taking out the "maya" concept but then again it probably would not make much sense to a newbie in the form it was. (Blacksun 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

Merger agreed.Cygnus_hansa 19:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan theory is not universally accepted

I dont agree with the lead in and the core part where Hinduism is referred to as Indo-Aryan religion. Why? Because as I do more and more research, I keep running into articles both of Indian and Western scholars (published very recently) that vehemently call the entire theory a fabrication. Yes it should definitely be mentioned but I am not sure if this is accepted as universally for Wikipedia to pass it as a fact. It seems like a very hotly contested theory academically. Also, the featured version did not have such an outright acceptance of one theory over the other. As such, I will remove the term. If you do not agree, give me good reasons for why Wikipedia should accept one theory as a fact. Trust me, I am not doing this out of emotional or any other type of affilation to one theory over the other but purely academically. However, I will LEAVE it in origin of hinduism as it definitely belongs there as one of the schools of thought. But, I do not believe that wikipedia is supposed to give authority to one theory which is not hotly contested by scholars. (Blacksun 06:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

Please provide a synopsis of the Indo-Aryan theory in the article, indicating that the theory is controversial, if hypothetical. Also provide a very brief summary of conflicting theories, perhaps noting where necessary how accepted those alternative theories are vis-a-vis the Indo-Aryan theory. This whole subject shouldn't exceed more than 6-7 sentences, IMO. Given that no one knows what the origins of Hinduism are, there's no way to separate fact from theory. Under such circumstances, it is best to just provide a summary of the theories, noting that none are them are universally accepted and that the topic itself remains quite controversial. AreJay 14:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No no no. I object. Don't even touch the highly sensitive issue of Indo-Aryan migration or Indo-Aryan Invasion. You'll see that this article would soon degenerate to 90 % fights over this theory. It was me who wrote this word in the introductory paragraph. Its meaning is that Hinduism, since it follows the Vedic tradition, is essentially based on the Vedas. The Vedas are written in Sanskrit, and Sanskrit is linguistically classified in the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European language family. Thus the word Indo-Aryan.Cygnus_hansa 15:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me register my objection again, Hinduism does not follow only the Vedic tradition. It is prodominently indigenous, Shiva and Shakti, who have no mention in the Vedas; and Vishnu, who has scant mention (probably included later). Aupmanyav 04:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Steer clear of AIT in this article. Just say it is a sensitive topic in India and link to Aryan invasion theory, where the edit warriors can go and have fun. Incidentially, Cygnus is 100% right, there is no "Indo-Aryan theory". "Indo-Aryan" is an uncontroversial linguistic grouping. It only gets controversial where concepts of invasion/migration creep in. Blacksun, I know that the theory is vehemently disputed indeed, but it is fair to say that the vehemency here is generated by political and religious currents in India. People try to create the appearance of a vehement academic dispute, but it's just that: an attempt at creating that appearance. Be that as it may, this article is not the place to discuss it, or it will be torn to shreds by the tidal forces of the edit-warring involved. dab (ᛏ) 15:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. AIT is theory about superiority of european aryan race. To paint it in some other light is living in denial. Since when have languages been scientific? Have you looked at genetic evidence of these aryans being in India?

Dear anonymous, befor challengeing linguistics, please tell me how much of linguistics, esp historical linguistics do you know. As for me, I read linguistics on my own and now I am also haveing a formal course in it. And linguistics is a science, not an art like literature.Cygnus_hansa 19:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I agree. However, I am not sure if you want me to edit it back to calling it Indo-Aryan religion in the first paragraph or not. I dont think that the linguistic theory necessarily translates into religious theory. I have checked other encyclopedias and I have not seen the phrase "Indo-Aryan religion" and they dont really mention it in first paragraph. Either way, I dont really care. Just wanted to keep it NPOV. (Blacksun 17:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

I never said that Hinduism is an Indo-Aryan religion. I only said that Hinduism is based on the Indo-Aryan religion of the Vedas.59.163.25.48 17:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot for the life of me imagine how postulating a migration from Tajikistan to the Punjab in 1800 BC could be construed to establish the "superiority of european aryan race". It seems rather that the Hindus beating that dead and decomposed 19th century horse are living in denial. However, this is not the topic of this article. No, "Indo-Aryan religion" is not a good term. Most Hindus are speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, but the connection is incidential. dab (ᛏ) 19:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem in changing the term Indo-Aryan to simply Aryan--which in Indian culture means noble and respectable.Cygnus_hansa 19:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

no, no, Aryan has entirely different connotations than arya, that's why we have two separate articles about the terms. In meaning, the term Indo-Aryan has nothing to do whatsoever with the term arya. dab (ᛏ) 21:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism was not unknown in Afghanistan and Central Asia (Valhika, Kamboja, Gandhar). Uttarapatha included the Trans-Oxian nations such as Uttarkuru, Uttaramadra, Param-Kamboja and parts of Saka-dvipa (Wikipedia). Kauravas hailed from Uttarakuru. That is where the two, Aryans and Hindus, met and mingled. There was a flourishing Kamboja-Dwaraka trade route. That is why Aryans were not invaders in India and trickled in as brothers. Aupmanyav 11:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Aryans and Hindus" is a severely fallacious apposition. "[Indo-]Aryans" are speakers of certain languages, it's a linguistic term. Hindus are followers of a certain doctrine or religion, it's a sociological term. You can be a non-Aryan Hindu, a non-Hindu Aryan, a non-Hindu non-Aryan and an Aryan Hindu, viz. the terms are orthogonal. Since by "Aryans" you evidently mean "proto-Indo-Aryans", the term "Hindu" is moreover ill defined, since it is not known what religions may have been practiced at the time, the only source we have that almost reaches back into those times is an Indo-Aryan source, viz. the Rigveda. You are free to define "proto-Hindu" = "IVC religion" (idiosyncratically, not on Wikipedia), and then your statement would even make sense, but you would just define an unknown by another unknown. dab (ᛏ) 13:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

Please give your opinion on this as the introductory paragraph:

'Hinduism (Devanāgari: हिन्दू धर्म), also known as Sanatana Dharma (सनातन धर्म) and is an religious tradition which developed in India from the interaction of indigenous beliefs and those of Vedic Aryans. Both traditions have no beginnings in history, thus making Hinduism the longest practiced major religion. Hinduism expects its adherents to be unwaivering in one's duty (Dharma). Hinduism is surprisingly tolerant in the matter of personal beliefs making it impossible to define Hinduism, which range from polytheism to monism, and even atheism. Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world with approximately 900 million adherents, most of whom live in India. Nepal is the only nation in the world with Hinduism as its state religion.'

The reason why Hindu, Hinduism pages are not as good as Christianity and Islam is that we want to give it our own color. Aupmanyav 14:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Not NPOV, and quite vague.Cygnus_hansa 15:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

factually unproblematic, but I maintain that questions of origins of Hinduism do not belong in the intro. The first two sentences can go to the "Origins" section, but the intro should be concerned with what Hinduism is, and not descend into speculation in the very first sentence. dab (ᛏ) 15:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If the intro suggested by me is vague, please tell me if the present one is any less? I have objections to anyone saying that hindu faith, practices and philosophies have evolved from Vedic tradition. That is not the main source. There is just a passing reference to Vishnu and Rudra (not even Shiva) in the Vedas which might be interpolation. Even in the Smarta tradition, except for Surya all the Gods whose worship is accepted are non-Vedic, Ganesha, Shakti, and Skanda, apart from Vishnu and Shiva. And Surya might have been important even to the indigenous people. I am not a Tamil (I am a Kashmiri), but giving more than due importance to Vedic thought will create dissentions. Proto-Hinduism vanquished the Aryan Gods and articles on Hinduism should reflect that. Smartas should not takeover the Hinduism articles. Kindly read the following for a possible scenerio:

'When the Vedic and the proto-Hindus interacted, Proto-Hindus accepted Sanskrit language and the wisdom of 'Vedas'. The Aryans accepted the unifying philosophy of proto-Hinduism and their Gods. It is at this time that references to Vishnu and Rudra might have been included in the Vedas. Later Brahma worship was abolished with allegations of an incestous attempt. Indra's was made an enuch and his worship was abolished with a allegation of rape. The Aryan Gods were relegated to a secondary position making them just a brood of thirty from Aditi. In the end, Aryan Gods were nearly forgotton, invoked only on special occasions; while the proto-Hindu Gods, Shiva, Vishnu, and Mother Godess reigned supreme.

What happened in Daksha's yagna was climactic (notice that is was a Aryan yagna where the indigenous Shiva was slighted). The Aryan army of Gods was profundly routed. One thing which I distinctly remember from my childhood reading is that God Pukha had all his teeth broken. Things like this happen in mythology for a particular reason. Shiva's victory was commemorated in places as distant as Haridwar (Uttaranchal - Daksha Temple) and Tiruppariyalur (Tamilnadu - near Thanjavur), and we have 52 Shakti Peethas all over the sub-continent where pieces of Sati's body are supposed to have fallen. What we are following now is more of a proto-Hindu religion than the Aryan one.' Aupmanyav 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

distinguishing two groups "Aryans" vs. "proto-Hindus" is needlessly controversial and purely speculative. The "proto-Hindus", if you have to define them, are the Indians of maybe AD 200-800 when the contemporary interpretations began to emerge. About "proto-Vedic" religion, there can only be speculation, offtopic to this article. Of course the connection between Vedic religion and contemporary Hinduism are tenuous, but there is, without doubt, a connection. This is a matter of terminology, and "Hinduism" is such a huge umbrella term that in some definitions it includes Vedic religion. "Hinduism" means just about "any religious tradition native to the Indian subcontinent". The intro absolutely has to make clear just how extremely heterogenous the term is, no matter what. There can be no talk of Hinduism being "monolithic". It is treated as a single "world religion" by convention, but that's rather like treating "Abrahamism" like another single world religion. dab (ᛏ) 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

But please remember that it is not a figment of my imagination. The scale is loaded in favour of Aryans being immigrants to India. They are not two people. They are one and so well mixed that only a study of mitochondrial DNA might separate them. Otherwise what was the need for the Vedas to mention Ati-Ratra, or 30 Dawn sisters, or the sun rising and not setting back in one day. Aryans have been very complimentary to the proto-Hindus. The Aryans were here and had adjusted when Taittariya Samhita was written around 2,500 B.C., and when sun rose in Krittika and not in Mrigashiras (I am a votary of Lokmanya Tilak's theory). Proto-Hindus were here in Mehrgarh in 6000 B.C. and later in Moyan-jo-dero and Harappa. The discussion is not proto-Vedic. It concerns things mentioned in RigVeda. I have never denied the Aryan connection to Hinduism but we should not over do it. Saying that Hinduism is based on Vedic Parampara does not do justice the true picture. You say there should be no talk of Hinduism being monolithic, but the article mentions that, and that is exactly what I am contesting. I read today that Hinduism is like a museum of religious thought. Aupmanyav 18:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, your arguments are true but only partly. First of all, understand this: there is a silent convention on this article that we do not use the word Gods for the Sanskrit devatās. We use God only for Ishvara (or sometimes for Brahman). Please respect this convention. And again I must say--where have we said that Hinduism is just an Aryan religion? We only say that Hinduism is based upon the Vedas of the Indo-Aryans. Smartas have not taken over this article, we have tried to give respect to the full diversity, keeping in mind the dinosaur length of the article. You are true that Vishnu, Shiva and the Mother Gods reign supreme, but they also have their roots in the Vedas (maybe earlier only a minor role). Furthermore, you amount to say that the Modern Hindus who worship the above three--do not now respect the sacred Vedas and their sacred sound. The Vedas still have deep respect in the society.Cygnus_hansa 19:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC) (Magicalsaumy)

• Dab: Well, it just happens that their are good arguments against what you said in the article backed by good sources :). Hinduism is extremely heterogenous. Agreed. However, if you are a Hindu you will find that their are certain basic concepts that are shared amongst majority of your peers however different their religious practices might be. Also, their IS a very solid case to be made about monolithic aspects of Hinduism. It is not just some random agenda of certain group but a well established belief amongst hundreds of millions of Hindus. Also, I do not agree that Hinduism means any religious belief native to India. On short term basis, it might be true but if we look at long periods of time, I think their is a case to be made against this. Hinduism has continuously (even at present) accepted religious beliefs that could lead to moksha. Consider the case of Indians who accept Jesus but continue to call themselves Hinu, follow Hinduism, and go to the temples. What does this mean? Maybe under a more conventional definition (especially western) of religion it does not mean a religion. Maybe their is a little bit of truth in all religions/faiths/practices. So what is wrong with having a system that allows you to accept or explore other beliefs without forcing you to abandon your current set of beliefs? So, while scholars argue whether Hinduism is a religion or not, close to a billion people will continue to identify themselves as followers of Hinduism. It is not convention but it is reality. (Blacksun 21:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

Aupmanyav, if you want to discuss this origin stuff, you may want to come to Vedic religion, or even Indo-Iranians. However, your use of "Proto-Hindus" is completely idiosyncratic, and your date of 6000 BC well into the Neolithic. Yes, the standard assumption is that historical Vedic religion came about by syncretism of several components, just like every other religion on Earth, but we cannot know the details. This is not the article for all that. All I ask of this article is that there be a (brief!) "Origins" section pointing to Vedic religion. dab (ᛏ) 19:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

'Accept Jesus': Now do I see Bill Graham in action. If Hindus in their general decency towards all religions bow when they pass in front of a church or dargah, should that be called 'accepting Jesus' or 'accepting Islam', which means accepting Jesus as THE son of God and the only SAVIOR? Hindus KNOW that is NOT the truth and there are other WAYS also, one simple way is to do their duty (DHARMA). Aupmanyav 02:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder who started calling Aryans as Indo-Iranians per se? Any particular aversion to use the word 'Aryan'? Aryans were Indo-Greek and Indo-Romans or Indo-Nordic also. The Aryans who came to India and settled here have no connection with Iran, why should they relish being called Indo-Iranians? Aupmanyav 02:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aupmanyav Uncle, with all due respect, I must say that you have a knack of misunderstanding and misinterpreting things. Or it maybe that you are blissfully unaware of disciplines like linguistics. What a bliss is ignorance--allows one to blabber anything one wants and then say--oh, I dont know and dont care about those linguistics-winguistics stuff! First of all, Aryans is an anglicized version of Sanskrit ārya (this I hope evryone knows). And Sanskrit and Old Persian/Iranian are sister languages. They all belong to the Indo-European family of languages. This Indo-European family includes Ancient languages like Sanskrit, Classical Greek, Latin, Gothic, Avestan, etc and new languages like English, Hindi, Urdu, Kashmiri, Persian (Farsi), German, French, Russian, etc., but not Tamil or telegu or arabic or chinese. And there is a branch of Indo-European languages called Indo-Iranian branch, under which come two branches: Indo-Aryan branch (of Sanskrit) and Iranian branch (of Farsi, etc). That is what is meant by Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian. Now who in the sane minds would say that Indian aryans have no connections with Iran?Cygnus_hansa 08:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear nephew Cygnus_hansa, when you call me as uncle, please do not use the words like 'blabber' because our religion teaches us to be courteous to all and especially to elders. My objection is first to call Hinduism 'a religious tradition that is based on the Vedas'. It is more than that, it is a tradition based on a mix of indigenous beliefs, to which the Aryan beliefs were added and later some were discarded. It is unfair to disregard that. It is things like this which create differences among us. This would not be accepted by Hindus who consider themselves to be of a so-called Dravidian extraction, basically those people who populated India before coming of Aryans. Now to Indo-Iranians. But so were the Mittani who vowed by Indra, Varun, Mitra and the twin Nasatyas (http://www.salagram.net/VWHAfrica.html) in 1,350 B.C. So we should be called Indo-Mesopotamian. And the Romans have Latin which also is close to Vedic Sanskrit, and had a year of 304 days (365 - Ati Ratra), and called their twelveth month as December (10) leaving out the two month night of their original homeland (they were Dashagvahs like the Indian Aryans), so we should be called Indo-Roman and so on. So what reason we have to call ourselves as Indo-Iranians and forget our Memopotamian, Roman, Greek (where also Herakles had to recover the cows with the help of a dog from the dungeons of the Titans, the dasas), and Nordic brothers. I would prefer to write just Aryans. Saying 'NPOV and vaugue' and dismissing the opinion of all others and insisting on one's own would land us with the Arbitration Committee. What would be better is to accept other views also and strengthen them with references. After all, we all want the Hinduism pages, which are currently in precarious condition, to improve. Let us not forget this goal. With best wishes. Aupmanyav 11:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aupmanyav, I never told you that you are blabbering; as a mark of courtesy I had said one can blabber..... (the most I could do). As for me, your mythologies and those of Tilak (although I do respect him otherwise) are nothing but humorous and funny to me. Artic home of the Aryans' theory is a blasphemy upon science and well-studied history. Your interpretations of Vedic verses are just mindless ramblings--no sane historian or scholar would conform to them. I do not believe in astrology. I do not believe that astrology has anything to do with science. Those times when you talk about (od melting / onset of Ice Age, migration etc) are given such dates that correspond to human settlements who were nothing better than half-apes! They didn't even know how to cook or make tools any better than stone or to farm--forget about any high grade Vedic civilizations. And you still haven't understood Indo-Iranian. Latin, Greek, etc ARE close to Sanskrit, but the closest of them all is Avestan which is an ancient Iranian language--the sacred language of the Parsis. Hence it is well-believed that Indo-Aryan and Iranian branches are grouped under the Indo-Iranian linguistic branch. They have several linguistic features, consonants, etc peculiar to them, different from the other branches of the Indo-European language family. Hence the North Indians are (linguistically, not racially) firstly Indo-Aryans, then Indo-Iranians, and then Indo-Europeans. But now I think that let language be separate from religion. As we said and I stand by this point, Hinduism is based on such a tradition of a linguistic community, but it has evolved to be much, much more than just something Indo-Aryan. As a footnote, I appreciate your views to show about diversity in Hinduism and not show it as a monolithic thing, but such viwes cannot be squashed into the introduction. At least before the Maha-cleanup and pruning, multiple viwepoints were given atb appropriate places.Cygnus_hansa 16:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I neutralized the monistic statement in introductoin. Also, I think their is still plenty of places where the diversity aspect is addressed even right now. For instance, under dieties it clearly states, "# According to the philosophy of Mīmāṃsā, all the devas and devīs are the sovereign rulers of the forces of nature and there is no one Supreme Īshvara as their Lord. To do a desired action, the humans must please each or several of these devas by worshipping them with proper rituals. This kind of view could be regarded as purely polytheistic. Although the later Mīmāṃsakās retracted this view and accepted Īshvara, this view is still held today by a substantial populace of today's Hindus." Even in denominations this issue is addressed to some extent. I am not sure what you are unhappy with but feel free to share your inputs. Before the "maha-cleanup" the article simply was suffering from multiple repeats of beliefs related to Brahman. (Blacksun 23:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

Mahacleanup is a necessary evil--I accept it. But once the featured-horror thing passes away, I'd like to reintroduce some of the details that have been removed. Infact, it was me who wrote the statement you've just referred to.(Cygnus_hansa)

Well, I dont agree for the most part. I think most of the details that I cleaned up was repeats or not suitable for this article. However, it seems like some people are bent upon adding text that makes Hinduism seem like a monistic religion only. So this article is probably going to go to hell again. It is very annoying. I dont understand the obsession amongst some Hindus to prove that Hinduism is just an another rehashed monistic religion. The reality is that even amongst Hindus who accept the existance of one supreme entity, this acceptance is in an extremely sub-conscious manner.(Blacksun 15:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

What do you mean onssession? It is a monistic religion--whatever are opposing views of Hindu populace have been dealt with at proper places. And if the cleanup is not entirely due to featured article reason, I am definitely going to revert some of the edits.Cygnus_hansa 16:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, you seem to have some very far out ideas. First of all, go and read our Aryan article. You seem to use "Aryan" to refer to Proto-Indo-Europeans. Please don't do that, use PIEans. Discussion of Proto-Indo-European religion and all sorts of speculations surrounding it is offtopic on this talkpage and you should drop it. Come to Talk:Proto-Indo-European religion if you have any suggestions. Then, "Indo-Aryans" by definition are all speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, including Hindi, Urdu, Bengali etc. etc. There is no such thing as an "Indo-Aryan religion". If you take that term to refer to religions practiced by Indo-Aryans, Hinduism itself would first and formost be an "Indo-Aryan religion", but to a lesser extent also Islam and Christianity. It is stupid to try to classify religions by language of their adherents. Religion is not language. dab (ᛏ) 11:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

forget it, from your userpage I realize you are immersed in your own personal mythology. You should then be aware of WP:CITE. Your views can be taken into account if you can quote notable authorities who discuss them in their publication. You want to talk about a "Sub-Arctic origin of the Aryans"? cite sources (preferably not centenarian crackpot national mysticists). dab (ᛏ) 11:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dab, Many of my ideas are from 'The Orion' and 'The Arctic Homes in Vedas' by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a nationalist no doubt, but probably the first to accept that Aryans were not indidenous to India. I do not think you can describe Tilak in these words without paying attention to what he is saying. Giving the date AD 200-800 for pre-historic Hindu thought is just like Max Mueller giving the date 1,500 B.C. for Aryans, arbitrary. Would you kindly explain what was it that Buddha differed from in 500 B.C.? Aupmanyav 04:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cygnus_hansa, this is historical astronomy and not astrology, where there are not many other proofs. Many problems are created because people have their prejudices against the radical theories that they offer. Otherwise, explain just one Vedic reference, the thirty Ushas (this is a challenge).

Half-apes? Even Homo Neandertalis covered their dead with ochre and they left us cave paintings and Makapansgat stone (http://www.originsnet.org/oldowangallery1/pages/a)makapansgat.htm). Homo Sapiens Sapiens had crossed over to the Americas 40,000 years ago. French cave paintings are 40,000 years old. Aupmanyav 05:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please give me the reference ofthe Rigvedic verse where 30 Ushas come. And dear Uncle, you are paying too much attention to minor exceptions rather than generalized overviews. There are exceptions in everything, even in modern science. And what we are talking about is the most non-scientific subject--history. Just because half-apes were able to make crude paintings and crude burials does not mean we can advance human civilization dates by tens of thousands of years ago. Cygnus_hansa 08:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You denigrate them by calling them half-apes, they were our uncles (we diverged about 150,000 years ago). If you limit the history of religion to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, that is unfair and unjustifiable. Last of them was here just about 30,000 years ago. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3023685.stm) Aupmanyav 10:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thirty Dawns: A whole chapter in Tilak's book, 'The Arctic Home in the Vedas' is devoted to 'The Vedic Dawns' (49 pages). Thanks to this 16 year-old girl Gabriella from Eugene, Oregon, the whole book is available on the net at http://www.vaidilute.com/books/tilak/tilak-info.html, just click at the book logo at the bottom and go to Chapter 5. She also has the 'Orion' on her pages, the two books from which I quote ideas. RigVeda has 20 hymns to Dawn where these are mentioned nearly 300 times. These hymns are according to many scholars amongst the most beautiful in RigVeda and the deity is made out to be a most charming figure. The Eastern (Yaska and Sayana) and the Western scholars tried to explain these verses, but none had the idea that these refer to the long drawn out dawns of the Arctic region and tried to explain it with what they knew, the two hour dawn every 365 days of the year, so they could come up only with contorted explanations. I will give just few examples to explain: 1. Taittareeya Sanhita VIII 2.20 mentions seven oblations, to Ushas, Udeshyat, to Udyat, to Udita, to Suvarga, to Loka, and finally to Vi-Ushti (Vyushti). Ushas is night and Vyushti is day. How come there are five intervening dawns? 'Ushase Swaha Vyushtyai Swahodeshyate Swahodyate Swahoditaya Swaha Suvargaya Swaha Lokaya Swaha'. Udeshyat-about to rise, Udayat-rising, Udita-already risen. This could not have happened with a 2-hour dawn. RigVeda (V,79,9) asks dawn not to delay, or tarry long, lest it might be scorched like a thief by the sun (Vyuchcha Duhitardivo ma chiram tanutha apah| Nettva stenam yatha ripum tapati sooro archisha|). In II,15,6, the steeds of the dawn are said to be slow (Ajavasah). I,113,13 says "the Goddess Ushas dawned continually or perpetually (Shashvat-tama) in former days (pura)" (Shashvatpurosha Vyuvas devi). I,13,10 "Kiyati a yat samaya bhavati, ya vyushuryashcha nunam vyachchan; Anu purvah kripate vavashana, pradidhyana josham anyabhir eti|" Griffith translates it (following Max Mueller) as "How long a time and they shall be together, - dawns that have shone and dawns to shine hereafter? She yearns for former dawns with eager longing and goes forth gladly shining with the others". There are many more examples which you can find at the link mentioned, let me finish with thirty dawns - "The thirty sisters, bearing the same banner, move on to the appointed place. They, the wise, create the seasons. Refulgent, knowing (their way), they go round amidst songs (chanted by priests) (Trinshatsvasar upayanti nishkritansamanam ketum pratimunchmana, ritunstanvate kavayah prajanatirmadhyechchandasah pariyanti bhasvateeh|). My best wishes for a better understanding of Vedas. Aupmanyav 12:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Need a replacement image

oooh think some of you can spend your time to find a replacement image for the "brahman boy" image on the article? I can't find anything and that is up for deletion (soon).(Blacksun 06:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

Religious tradition based on Vedas - Some mental block

Now that I am back after registering my replies to some nasty messages in Talk:Hindu page, I pick up the gauntlet about describing Hinduism as a 'religious tradition based on Vedas'. Somebody has a big mental block about Hinduism being Aryan only and not acknowledging the contribution of the thousands of traditions of the other inhabitants of India. Would the people who insist on this description, please tell me whether the Aryan religious concepts were accepted in toto by the people of India or there was some give and take? If there was some, what was given and what was taken? Why have people accepted this errorenous description of Hinduism? I am looking forward to some answers to my querries? Changes, of course, after discussion.

'Vedic Religion: Modern Hinduism grew out of the knowledge described in the Vedas.' My perennial complaint. How can you take hinduism to belong to Aryans only, knowing well that all their Gods were replaced by Gods foreign to them. Why is somebody intent on discounting the influence of indigenous thought in Hinduism?

No horse was killed in 'Ashvamedha', it had become symbolic even in the RigVedic time. Aupmanyav 07:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What evidence do you have for your last statement? Paul B 11:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Even in Valmiki's Ramayana, there are explicit descriptions about Queen Kaushalya slaughering the sacrificial horse by three trokes of sword on his neck (Ashvamedha yagya). Please see the Griffith's translation of Ramayana. If you know Sanskrit, please compare it with the original Sanskrit words, so that you have no reason to complain.Cygnus_hansa 08:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That was not the main point here. It is 'Hinduism is a religious tradition based on Vedas'. That has not been answered. About Ashwamedha, I am searching and hope to come back to you with what I get. What Tilak says is that it was conducted during the Ati-Ratra (the long arctic night) when the sun was imprisoned or the cows (dawns) were abducted by the dasas, Vritra, etc. The Vedic priests tried to fortify the horse (Indra's or Sun's, I do not know yet), so that either Indra may reach the cave early or the sun could come back early. Normally the process would entail yagna, that is putting fat and havisha (herbs) in the sacrificial fire, nice aroma. It was a Soma ceremony (what does that mean, boozing?). True, sub-arctic nights were cold. Read somewhere that even in Vedic times it was symbolic, just like Nachiketa returning to life after being sacrificed, or Purusha's sacrifice. But I know you would not be satisfied with just that. Aupmanyav 16:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Hinduism Amorphous or 'well thought out'.

What I understand of Hinduism is that 'Dharma' and 'Personal Belief' were clearly bifurcated. The sages understood that what is important is the way we act in the society. So no moving away from Dharma and the concept of three debts, etc. There is no harm in different people having different personal beliefs. This is freedom of thought, helps us to go further, and removes of conflicts (the Vaishnavites and Shaivites did some time indulge in it). This was, I would say, a well-planned strategy and available only in Hinduism. Even Buddhism ties you to Buddha-mind. Any views? Aupmanyav 12:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple—Hinduism is amorphous.Cygnus_hansa 07:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Amorphous, if it happened by itself. What I maintain is that Hinduism arrived at this consciously after weighing all pros and cons. Aupmanyav 11:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Counter-productive (refer to all Indic Religions under one umbrella).

Why should we do that when Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs do not want this. Why impose ourselves on them. Even the Constitution says that they are Hindus 'only in law', but 'not in religion'. If they are to be considered Hindus, then show the number of Hindus at 900 million + 376 million + 23 million + 4 million = 1,303 million. That would be gratifying, why count Hindus only at 944 million as in the article (figures from www.adherents.com). The correct things to say would be that Hindus do not consider Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs any different from themselves; and philosophy and many beliefs are common. Nobody can have objection to that. What we think is our choice. Your views? Aupmanyav 12:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Another point: I find the mention of Mahanirvana Tantra in the Smriti section. We do not need to mention it since it is a Buddhist text.

Why Missionary Research in Hinduism Page

The following statement is from Bakker. H., "The Challenge of Churchless Christianity: An Evangelical Assessment", International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 29, p. 179, 2005.

'A peculiar manifestation of this belief is evident amongst some Hindus who accept foreign beliefs but still identify themselves as followers of Hinduism.'

This is a biased statement and should not be included in the Hinduism page. What does the author mean? Do these hindus accept Jesus as their sole savior and as SON of God? Which God? Shiva, Rama, Krishna? Not showing disrespect to beliefs of other people is certainly a Hindu trait, but this certainly goes beyond that. Aupmanyav 17:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Evangelism

'Hinduism does not evangelize as do Christianity and Islam. Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the issue is open to interpretations. [4] That is to say, it rather depends upon the Hindu society whether they consider a non-Hindu, who has got a dīkṣhā into a Hindu sect, as a Hindu or not.'

This is a fallacious statement. The link (Jha, Dwijendra N. "Looking for a Hindu Identity". Pages 10, 39, 40) does not contain anything against conversion. On the countrary, it mentions 'Vratyasoma' rite by which non-Aryans could be converted to Aryans. The Arya Samaj has the 'Shuddhikaran' rite with which it has converted thousands of non-Hindus to Hinduism. In Sanatan tradition there is no bar at all. No one can dispute the statement of a person that he accepts the wisdom he found in the hindu scriptures or stop the person from worshipping any of the hindu Gods, and there are a lot of Shiva or Krishna worshippers who were formerly non-Hindus. Aupmanyav 04:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

See--the problem lies not in the Hindu religion, but in the mindset of the Indian peoples. A huge, huge majority of the Hindu population will never accept a white-skinned foreigner who has converted into a Hindu sect as a proper Hindu. For them he will always be a non-Hindu. As for indigenous Indian person who is a Buddhist, Jain, converted Muslim, etc., the population will accept his conversion to Hinduism because the Hindus believe that "originally there was only Hinduism"; hence his conversion would simply mean embracing back the faith once forsaken. This idea is stronger in Hindutva, who think that in the whole world, originally there was only Hindusim. Many Hindu temples (like Kashi Vishwanath Temple of Varanasi) do not allow white-skinned foreigners to enter; one can haggle with the chief priest that he "has converted into Hinduism", but in vain.Cygnus_hansa 08:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what branch of Hinduism you talk about Those who are in the Smarta school lean towards non-conversion. Vaishnavites believe otherwise. Ramanuja converted one Jain Hosayala emperor Vishnuvardhana to Vaishnavism.

Raj2004 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Raj: This page is for all Hindus, not just for Smartas among whom I have some dear friends. Please enlighten me on what basis a Smarta will object to someone who considers himself/herself a Hindu to worship Shiva or Krishna, or the study of scriptures? All descendents of Satrap, Greek, Kushan, or Buddhist kings converted to Hinduism in history. Of course, a conversion to Hinduism should be based on knowledge and understanding, just pouring a tumbler of water on a person's head will not be sufficient. Aupmanyav 03:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Aupmanyav, generally, the question of conversion is a non-issue for many Hindus. Smartas, who follow Advaita philisophy, are more liberal than Saivites and Vaishnavites. because they are not fixated on one concept of God. If you ask a Madhva, they seem to denigrate Lord Shiva in order to demonstrate Vishnu's supremacy. A smarta thinks Vishnu and Shiva are different aspects of Brahman. Hence, the conversion issues are less important for them. I agree that this page is for all Hindus but you have to be clear. Also if you are an atheist, that's may be Hindu in the broad sense in terms of culture, not religion. You may be following the Charvaka school which was known even at the time of the writing of Upanishads. Even in Lord Krishna's time, there were atheists. There's a specific verse, in the Gita which states that the demoniac think creation is a simply a creation of lust, instead of a supreme personal God. Gita:16:8: "According to them nothing is ultimately real in this world. It is Godless and without any moral basis. Being born of sexual union, what else but lust can be said to be its cause?"

Raj2004 10:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear friend, I am not a charvakist, they are long gone. I am an advaitin who believes in 'Sarva Khalvidam Brahma'. With regards, Aupmanyav 11:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aupmanyav: I didn't mean to state that you were an atheist. Many state that Hinduism includes atheism. I was trying to clarify. sorry for any misunderstanding.

Raj2004 11:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Raj: Since I do not believe in 'any other', there is no God for me to worship. 'Kasmai Devaya Havisha Vidhema?'. Shiva, Shakti, and Vishnu are ideas from my culture. Rama and Krishna are my culture heroes. They give my people unity, and from their stories I get guidance for my life. I hope you are not too disappointed. With regards, Aupmanyav 15:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, I am sorry. I don't know Hindi or Sanskrit. What does Sarva Khalvidam Brahma mean?

and what does "Kasmai Devaya Havisha Vidhema". I am not disappointed. Everyone has their own opinion. Even to call Vishnu is an idea from your culture is your opinion. In my culture, Sriman Narayana or Ishwara is not just an idea. For me, Sriman Narayana is All and more! Krishna for me is a not a culture hero but what humans should aspire to.

Regards,

Raj2004 00:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, you have some misconceptions about Advaitism. There is no Ishwar only if one enters the Transcendental state of reality. In the pragmatic state, Brahman is viewed as Ishwar. Futher more, in the pragmatic level, whenever we are talking about Brahman, we are actually talking about God (Ishwar). Sarva Khalvidam Brahma applies only to the Transcendental state.Cygnus_hansa 08:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cygnus, that's what I thought. Advaiatans recognize a personal God as Saguna Brahman.

Raj2004 10:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Friends, I might have reached the transcendental state of reality for all you know! But that does not concern this article. That is why I replied to Raj on his talk page. True, half-baked advaitins would recognize 'Ishwara', and full-baked ones would accept it for their sake. Aupmanyav 11:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is his response:

Raj: 'Brahman' (i.e., me or you) is Saguna, otherwise the universe would not have been created. The 'gunas' have not been fully comprehended by the only object created by it that is capable of comprehending it (human mind), though acheivements of the human mind are commendable. At the moment we know that 'Brahman' sort of frolicks (Maya) for reasons unknown to human mind. An electron changing into a positron with a cosmic fart (emmission of a nutrino). Another cosmic fart (emmission of Gamma Ray) and positron changes back into an electron. This sort of thing has gone on at least for the last 14 billion years every attosecond (that is the smallest time interval that I find on the internet, 10 raised to power -12 of a second). That leaves many things unexplained and human mind continues its search with the string theory which is supposed to be better, nine strings in all. One thing is certain; mercy (al-Rahim), bountifulness (al-Rehman), and 'gunas' like that which human mind has usually associated with it are not in contention. They are more of a physical sort. Also there is an indeterminacy associated with it. 'Brahman' tries to shield its secrets from prying minds. Thanks, your query makes me think. Aupmanyav 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But Advaita recognizes a personal God. As the Ishvara article states: "Since Brahman is without attributes (it is the subject of meditation and not worship), it is a concept even beyond God. For them, Ishvara is Brahman which is manifested upon the material world due to a complex illusionary power called Māyā. Ishvara can be given all positive attributes (Saguna Brahman) like being worshippable, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, merciful, etc but the ultimate reality remains Brahman and nothing else. The other sub-schools tend to identify Brahman with Ishvara to various degrees, and in turn Ishvara is indentified with their favorite deity or Ishta-deva like Vishnu or Krishna.

Raj2004 19:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Then, dear friend, meditate on the subject. But you too are entitled to your opinion. 'Jaki rahi bhavana jaisi, prabhu moorat tin dekhi taisi' (God appears in the way in which you want to see him). Aupmanyav 10:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

dear friend, I hope you were not intending to be sarcastic by that comment and meant it in good faith.

regards.

Raj2004 16:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

All my replies are in good faith. I have not been taught by my family or my religion to be disrespectful to others (Tejasvinaam Navadheetamastu - May our deliberations be brilliant). You have yourself mentioned that 'Brahman is .. (.. the subject of meditation and not worship), it is a concept even beyond God.' Accepting God is only half of the journey. You have to complete the other half. Regards. Aupmanyav 04:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

'a class of outcastes—Dalits—outside the Varṇa Vyavasthā'

Please tell me of a single instance where the word 'dalit' is mentioned in Shruti or Smriti. All present-day dalits belong to some caste, except the avarnas/Chandalas of history whom Manu described as 'fruit of adultery, incest and crime'. I cannot fault Manu for being tough on Chandalas, he was a law giver. He can be excused for creating stiff laws in the interest of orderliness. If the sociologist uses the word 'dalit' for disadvantaged castes, it is understandable. The word has also been used by clever politicians, christian missionaries and muslims, who claim to be their saviors and to sow dissension in Hindu soceity. The word is not from any Hindu scripture and we should not use it. Aupmanyav 10:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It is never mentioned that Hindu scriptures use such a word. Its entirely a sociological construct, and has been presented as such. And there is no Manu who wrote any book. Its only later Brahmins who wrote a book under his name. See Manusmriti. Cygnus_hansa 08:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I say. Word 'dalit' should not be used. Instead use 'untouchables'. Why should we koetoe christians, muslims, and unscrupulous politicians in calling a part of our society as 'dalits'. They had their place in society, of course, certain norms were followed while interacting with twice-borns. The attrocities happened only in recent history when the British-backed 'zamindars' mostly in Bengal exploited them for labour and appropriated their lands. Appropriation of land of these people was possible with the institution of Numberdars and regulations of British-instituted legal system. Aupmanyav 10:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Things like "should be" and "must be" have no place in wikipedia.Cygnus_hansa 10:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dalit should be mentioned in Wikipedia only with reference to sociology and not in reference to castes. As I mentioned, the word 'dalit' does not belong to Hindu scriptures and you agreed to it. Aupmanyav 14:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Hinduism

'Kṛiṣhṇa’s incarnation was preceded by Lord Rāma’s, sometimes dated at over 5-6000 BCE, or even more than a million years ago in the Tretā Yuga according to the Rāmāyaṇa Epic. Many Hindus believe that their religious tradition was fully formed by the time of Lord Rāma, the seventh incarnation of Lord Viṣhṇu. Modern Indology dates the roots of Hinduism to about 1500-1300 BCE, based on linguistic and literary dating of the Ṛig Veda and is supported by Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis. However, the validity of both the dating and the hypothesis is questioned by some nationalist Hindu groups.'

I have objections to the above. There is no reson to mention a date for Rama which would be totally arbitrary. Similary 'the date by which Hinduism was fully formed'. Now what does that mean? Sankara, Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Basaveswara, and even Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Ramana, etc., all left their mark on Hinduism. It is a dynamic religion. Giving dates is useless. Go back as far as you can either in the indigenous thought or in the Aryan thought, there is no beginning, two rivers which later mingled, like the Ganges and the Yamuna. These are aboriginal philosophies. Aupmanyav 11:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The origins of Hinduism are difficult to define unlike Christianity.

Raj2004 11:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I also object to giving such ridiculus dates. Lets not mantion any such dates.Cygnus_hansa 07:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, no dates are available, why should we manufacture any. Krishna's date might be on a more solid ground, we still have the Kali Calender. If Harappa is considered to have Hindu elements, Mehrgarh also was similar (they did not find any change in culture), that would take Hinduism back to some 7,000 B.C. This 1,500-1,300 BCE is pure rubbish. RigVeda precedes the time when sun rose in Punarvasu and Avesta mentions ice-age. Why otherwise Aryans would say 'Sacrifice begins and ends in Aditi (Punarvasu)'. These are historical facts. Aupmanyav 10:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

'Though linguists and historians haven't reached a consensus'. I am surprised that there should be a controversy. What other word than 'Sindhu' or Avestan equivalent 'Hendu' gave rise to the word 'Hindu'? The oldest site related to Harappan civilization is Mehrgarh dated at 7,000 B.C. The second paragrph under this heading is totally superflous and could be dispensed with. Aupmanyav 11:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is with some extra-foreigner-hating Hindutvavadis who want to claim that everything is "indigenous" to India, including the word Hindu. So one Hindutvavadi says that the word Hindu comes from two words "Hi" (which means power) and "du" which means two--thus "Hindu" means two powers. Another Hindutvavadi says that Hindu comes from Sanskrit "Indu" (the moons)--hence the lunar race of the Kshatriyas (that of Bharatas, Purus, Kurus, etc).Cygnus_hansa 07:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be better if they used the term, "Dharmatva," then there would be no problem! Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that people weaken their own case by resorting to untruth, which can never win. That is not the way you win a debate. There is nothing wrong with accepting Aryans as immigrants to India. They found compatible people here, both were enriched. And it happened long before any European scholar envisions this to have happened, sometime before 2,500 B.C. Saraswati dried up around 1,900 B.C. Actually it should be taken as a feather in the cap the way Hinduism absorbed Aryans and later many others, parthians, greeks, scythians, kushans, huns, gujjars, ahirs, etc. Islam escaped by a hair-breadth, we had Abdul Rahim Khan-e-Khanan singing praises of Krishna and an azhawr saint (muslim) singing praises of Vishnu. You should never underestimate the power of Hinduism. Things can still happen. My request to such hindutvavadis (I am also one), you do not loose anything by accepting truth. Aupmanyav 10:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I find the word 'Hundu' in etymology. Is 'handu' or 'hondu' also mentioned? I would be interested to know where people have seen this word mentioned? Why are we talking about medival texts? Etymology concerns much older period, at least Alexander's time. Aupmanyav 10:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism vs. Sanatan Dharma

I know in Holland, the Hindu community is broadly divided into "Arya Samajis" and "Sanatan Dharmis". People adhering to many other such movements, although call themselves Hindus, differentiate their religious beliefs from Sanatan Dharma. I was wondering whether it is appropriate to call all Hinduism 'Sanatan Dharma.' What do you guys think? deeptrivia (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ask Arya Samajis, they would also say that their belief is 'Sanatan', given by Lord God himself and present in every period of time. The 'Vedas' are not destroyed in 'Pralaya'. And they consider themselves as 'Hindus' (Thank God, unlike some of the Krishnas). So what if they call their 'panth', 'Arya Samaj'. Let an 'Arya Samaji' explain his point. Aupmanyav 06:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is true in India, at least if you look at the literal meaning of the term. It just happens to be that literal meanings get lost fast, and at least in some countries like Holland and Suriname, "Arya Samaji"s define themselves in contrast to "Sanatan Dharmi"s. deeptrivia (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

well, as always, if you can source it, discuss it (this article could do with a proper "terminology" section). dab (ᛏ) 07:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It is their wish if the 'Arya Samajis' would like to be considered Hindus or not. Perhaps Buddha and Nanak also did not mean it that way. What did we do when their followers broke away from us? Other religions have also experienced similar break-ups. The 'Arya Samajis' have the same freedom. Hindus would reckon the contribution of Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati in these terms. Was he one who strengthened Hinduism or caused a partition. Aupmanyav 06:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

btw, are you sure of the long u in "Hindū Dharma"? ū-stems are extremely rare, and while there is a (late) Sanskrit hindu, there is no hindū. Is the ū correct in Hindi? dab (ᛏ) 10:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hindu is spelled with a long ū in Hindi, and with short u in Sanskrit. That why in the introductory para I have mentioned Sanskrit/Hindi. Sanskrit uses the terminology Hindu in rarest of the rare cases, and hence the name proper is a Hindi word.Cygnus_hansa 15:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Please shorten the unnecessary long and emotional criticism and its replies section.Cygnus_hansa 07:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Readditions

I am very unhappy with the blind cleanup. Many important sentences that should have been there are lost. Some such sentences I am readding. Also, I don't like the excuse that "there is an entire separate article on ....". This is an essay on Hinduism, not a collection of links and phrases which direct to hundreds of info pages but itself contains no proper information. Cygnus_hansa 17:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

this is most certainly not an "essay" on Hinduism. WP doesn't do essays. And yes, in view of the (at times insane) length of this article, Wikipedia:Summary style is the way to go. There is more than enough room for any amount of brilliant prose in the sub-articles. dab (ᛏ) 10:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

feel free - i have mostly washed my hands from this article as I am not a scholar and have quickly realized that can be a handicap when dealing with multiple POV's (not to mention stressfull). Just be ready to defend it if anyone has problems with its large size. --Blacksun 20:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The First Line

The intro para states Hinduism's other names are Sanatana Dharma and Vaidik Dharma. But, as far as I know (and I know a lot), it is not Vaidik Dharma, but "Arya Vaidik Dharma". The word "Arya" is used not as a racial term but a meaningful term. It ,means Noble and it is the cultural connocttions that are important here. I am going to change the opening line after some time, if anyone has any comments please post it. --Shishir Rane 17:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The first time I have seen anybody writing 'I know a lot'. What should I take it to mean, Professor?

"Vidya dadati vinayam" (Education endows a man with humility), not at least in your case. Aupmanyav 12:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

that's much like Qur'an vs. Noble Qur'an, viz., the latter adds a sympathetic adjective. I am not sure the terms are interchangeable anyway, there needs to be a more detailed discussion of their scope and usage. dab (ᛏ) 07:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not be intolerant of the opinion of others. Hinduism as practised today in India is neither Aryan nor Vaidic. It is as in local parlance, Sanatani. The Aryan Gods have been forgotton, Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti rule the roost. There are no yagnas, but only Havans (without the elaborate arrangements of bricks, hotris and adhavaryus as mentioned in the Vedas). The deities invoked are all Sanatani. Now if you want to give a particular shade to Hinduism, I am sure many others would like to differ. The indigenous thought has accepted some part of the Aryan philosophy and practice and discarded the rest. Aupmanyav 11:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Shishir explicitly stated that the term is arya (cultural sense) , not aryan (racial sense). Such confusion is precisely why I advised you to drop your misleading "Aryan" rhetorics in favour of unambiguous "Indo-Aryan". dab (ᛏ) 16:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

btw, what is the source of your vidya dadati vinayam? It sounds remarkably like scio me nescire (not applicable to Shishir I agree :) dab (ᛏ) 16:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Vidya dadati vinayam, vinayat yati patratam; patratwat dhanamapnoti, dhanat dharmam tataha sukham". Education generates humility, humility generates worthyness; worthy earn money, money allows one to fulfills Dharma (upkeep of family, charity), fulfilling Dharma gives happiness. Anonymous (as far as I know), Subhashitani, wise sayings. Aupmanyav 03:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"monotheistic" campaign

Wikipedia seems to be overrun by some sort of "Hindu monotheist" campaign, inserting "monotheism" in all possible and impossible places. I realize that monotheistic thought is an important part of Hinduism. However, polytheism and pantheism are just as important. It irks me that the campaigners seem to consider polytheism as somehow inferior, and to take pride in the assertion that "Hinduism is monotheistic, too". Yes, it can be. Yes, that should be mentioned prominently. But no, "Hinduism is a monotheistic religion" as the first phrase of the intro is misleading, or outright false, and in striking contradiction to Hinduism#Denominations. It is false that polytheism is incapable of postulating an "Ultimate Truth", it may just do so by way of multiple divinities, which is precisely what much of Hinduism does. There appear to be recent iconoclastic movements, like Arya Samaj, adherents of which appear to try and morph Wikipedia articles on Hinduism according to their views. dab (ᛏ) 07:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right. We are just as proud at being polytheists, idol-worshipping, and non-Aryan, or even atheists. People are trying to give a very wrong explanation of what Hinduism is. They are trying to bind Hinduism in their own chains. This is totally unacceptable. I have not started making changes and I am trying to explain the situation to such people. Is it Monotheism that these people belive in or it is Monism? Aryans also were not monotheists. To all those who claim to be Monotheists, tell us how your philosophy is better than that of Abrahamic religions? To all those who love Hinduism, the page already is in a bad shape, a revert war would not do any good to it. Please come to your senses. Aupmanyav 11:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I welcome your approach, but I suppose you should talk less of "Aryans", which is a term only likely to add to the confusion. I must emphasize that I am absolutely neutral regarding the 'value' of monotheism, monism or polytheism. A polytheistic religion to me is every bit as valid as a monotheistic one. The problem with Hinduism, as I keep repeating on this page, that it is very difficult to say "we", even for a Hindu: it is an extremely wide umbrella term, and every attempt to reduce it to a core system of tenets is bound to be a biased simplification. That said, I do think you will find it difficult to make a case for "atheist" Hindus. dab (ᛏ) 12:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There have been atheist hindus all through the history, what else is Samkhya, Vaisheshika, Nyaya, Yoga, and Poorva Mimamsa? What about Kapila and Kashyapa, the first of the six historical Buddhas, and the four that followed him? And I am sorry, how can I talk less about Aryans, their descendents are indistinguishable part of us, they gave us the Vedas, Upanishads, and Sanskrit? Perhaps my great grand-dad was one, his verse appears in RigVeda in praise of Soma. :) Aupmanyav 12:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, again you have come up with wrong fundaes. What Samkhya was, nobody knows, because the original Samkhya sutras of Kapil are lost. Later Samkhya spilt up into atheistic and theistic philosophy, the latter claiming that Kapil had no intention of denying God. Purva Mimansa used to be purely polytheistic, but later accepted the God. And Yoga, Vaisheshika and Nyaya are and have always been highly theistic philosophies, with God as their central pillar. First get your fundaes right. Cygnus_hansa 18:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cygnus_hansa, would you kindly go through http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/690490.cms for a view on atheism and hinduism. Regards, Aupmanyav 18:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of polysemy. read the Aryan article, I suppose you mean the Proto-Indo-Aryans (or the Proto-Indo-Iranians?) it would help if you referred to them using proper terminology. And yes, I grant your points on atheism. It is an atheism born from mysticism, there were similar currents in medieval Europe (see for example the Brethren of the Free Spirit). dab (ᛏ) 12:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Were the Proto-Indo-Aryans not Aryans? Of course, different branches travelled to many lands right from India to Scandinavia. I am not a racist, for me Aryan is just the name of a people, like the Zulu, the Eskimos, the Mayans, or any other such group of people; and I accept that much intermixing would have taken place in Central Asia as well as in India. Aryan may apply to those historical people but to none now (in spite of the desires of my 'Arya Samaji' brotheren). They are interesting to Hindus because of the association of the two, after all we accepted their poetry and philosophy as our beacon. Scholars like you may want to call them proto-indo-aryans (no pun intended, you have contributed on many subjects), I am hardly one. Sorry, atheism born from mysticism in medival Europe does not cause my blood to flow quicker. I arrived at it after studying science. Aupmanyav 15:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree naming Hinduism a monotheistic faith in the introductory para. The lack of any central dogma in Hinduism makes it untenable to put up such a definition.Cygnus_hansa 15:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've rephrased that bit, again, to "Though most Hindus worship several deities, the religion is still considered monotheistic by many." I wonder if even this is too strong, frankly? Someone has quite rightly added a request for a citation to that statement, and I can't provide one; my main evidence that anyone seriously considers Hinduism to be basically a monotheistic religion is that at least one person has evidently gone well out of their way to stamp that opinion on Wikipedia. I went through all or most of the relevant articles a few weeks ago tempering the contentious assertion that Hinduism 'is' monotheistic, and laying out my case on this talk page (now in Talk:Hinduism/archive7) and more briefly under Talk:Polytheism. Nobody has presented a convincing counter-argument to the case I made, so I feel no compunction in continuing to equivocate on or remove bold assertions that Hinduism, so well-known for its worshipping of multiple gods, is monotheistic. I would be grateful if anyone strongly attached to this viewpoint would respond to arguments raised in the talk pages before replacing these statements. Thank you. --Oolong 17:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That said, I do think you will find it difficult to make a case for "atheist" Hindus. I consider myself an atheistic Hindu. Yes there are atheistic Hindus who believe in much of philosophy but not the rituals. Dab try not to impose your opinions everywhere. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 21:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

dab , read this [1] once to understand concept of God in Hinduism correctly. Hindus don't need to run any Monotheistic campaign. At the same time, you shouldn't run campaign to falsly present Hinduism as polytheist. It may look polytheist to ignorants but it is not. At the end of the day, even an illiterate Hindu kid who worship many deities in a remote village speaks and understand popular lines like "Ishwar ek hai" (God (Brahman) is ultimately one). So, please try to understand concept of God in Hinduism before starting a Polytheistic campaign - Holy Ganga 20:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It may be reasonable to say that Hinduism has some branches with monotheist tendencies, but seems to me to be as far as one can go. As has been said before, perhaps in other words, if you say that Hinduism is monotheistic and deny that it is polytheistic, that is close to making both words, monotheist and polytheist, quite meaningless. Did not someone (perhaps it was Joseph Campbell?) say that monotheism was the religion of Abraham? Imc 15:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Who is Joseph Campbell--Imperator mundi--the emperor of the world?Cygnus_hansa 08:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think classifying Hinduism into a monotheism/polytheism category caters to the Abrahamic religious worldview rather than define it on its own grounds. While it is a basic tenet in Abrahamic religions, the classification is not as relevant to Hinduism and is a more esoteric/philosophical subject. The common Hindu cares less about how many gods there are than other subjects of Hinduism. It would be like trying to define Christian ideas about karma and dharma to fit it into the eastern religious worldview. I agree that Hinduisms relationship with monotheism is overemphasised.

That said, I will have to admit that I think Hinduism is more monotheistic than not. Defining the religion by its lowest common denominator, the regular Hindu and his ideas, rather than by its scriptures or philosophy is similar to say defining Christian theology by the illiterate 15th century peasant who never read the bible (which was esoteric (a bit like the Vedas) in that it was not seriously translated from Latin into english until the 16th century) rather than by its clergy. Especially in Hinduism, discussions on monotheism/polytheism falls into the philosophic realm and is not a general theme that everyone is familiar with. And most (all?)philosophies in Hinduism say the Universe is governed by One (monotheism).

Again, that said, the common Hindu may worship many dieties (or gods), and may not be familiar with the theories about Brahman or Ishwar - but regularly uses the term 'Ishwar', and always in the singular not plural. If the concept that God (not deities) is One is not implicit in his worship, 'Ishwars' would have been common terminology. --Pranathi 02:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Pranathi - I would suggest that the analogy with Christianity in the 15th century fails for several reasons. Firstly, there is no central set of scriptures adhered to, even nominally, by all Hindus; therefore, we must define the religion not solely by its texts and discourses, but by the way it is practised by its adherents. Secondly, even in the case of Christianity, where in principle we can point to the Bible and say 'here's what Christianity is', that's not really the size of it; Christianity as practised by modern (or 15th Century) Christians differs in many ways from what the Bible says, and any accurate account of the religion needs to reflect that. We're not just talking about theology per se here; we're talking about the religion. If the practices and beliefs of most of a religion's adherents are at odds with those of its scriptures, priests or scholars, can we consider 'official' line to be the last word on the subject?

Another point - you argue that 'most (all?) philosophies in Hinduism say the Universe is governed by One (monotheism)' - I'm not sure that you are correct to imply here that most or all philosophies of Hinduism are monotheistic, much as they may be monistic. Monotheism is specifically belief that there is only one god; belief that there are many gods, all of which emanate from the same source (rather as there may be thought to be many souls which all emanate from the same source?), is still belief in many gods. --Oolong 10:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's see... Ganga, Polytheism "is belief in, or worship of, multiple gods or divinities" according our entry here. Do you hold that most Hindus do not believe in or worship more than one god or divinity (perhaps you are arguing that they do not consider Kali, Ganesha etc. to be divinities? Or just that they are all aspects of the same divinity?) Or do you hold that this definition of polytheism is erroneous? I would like to get to the root of this disagreement... --Oolong 14:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The root, IMHO, is that Hinduism leaves it to a person as to how many Gods he would worship and with what ceremonies. The suggestions in scriptures range from some 3,300 (including the village deities, kshetrapalas) to none. What it does not compromise with is 'Dharma' (duty or right action), because that maintains the society. Aupmanyav 01:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Oolong, I think the 'official' line should majorly define the religion in this case because it is the line of serious thinkers/people who have experienced the religion and also because there are no stats on what the laymen really believes (his religious leaders/priests preach that God is one) other than an observation of his practice. For example, I consider myself a lay Hindu, respect many deities and consider the religion monotheistic. The central set of scriptures, the Shruti, Upanishads and Gita conclude in One God. If a child believes numbers start at 0 and end at 100 or middle school science texts teach that the atom is indivisible,or that space and time are distinct dimensions, they do so for the sake of simplicity. But science says that numbers go less than 0 and further than 100, that the atom has been divided and time and space are both relative. And science is defined by what scientists say, not what a school kid understands.

Also, I am not familiar with the theory that many gods emanate from the same source. There is Advaita (monistic) that believes that forms of God/souls are all equal to Him (the whole is not different from the parts) - not emanating from Him. There are other philosophies Dvaita and Vishista advaita that believes there is one supreme theistic God (monotheism) and divinities (not God) emerge from Him.

Monotheism defines it as The belief in the existence of one God, or in the oneness of God. Are you contending that is not true of Hinduism?--Pranathi 02:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Who said that is not true? It is as true as there being 3,300 Gods or as there being one 'Brahman' constituting everything. Tell me which is wrong? Aupmanyav 02:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism believes not only in One God (Brahman), but also in His Infinite manifestations around us and within us perpetually. Realizing that it is impossible for mankind to visualize the Infinite, Hinduism presents us with His forms to help us visualize him. This belief of Hinduism is often confused with polytheism. Can you support your claim on the bases of scriptures that Hinduism has 3,300 GODS ? - Holy Ganga 08:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Pranathi - it's fair to say that this definition doesn't apply to all forms of Hinduism, eh? Are you contending that the definition we have for polytheism doesn't also apply? You yourself say that you 'respect many deities', which appears to place you within its purview. --Oolong 00:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please visit http://www3.sympatico.ca/chartreuse/AvatarsOfTheGoddess/IndiaA.htm for a long list of Godesses of Hinduism. I will try to find a similar list for Hindu Gods. These are our riches. Do not make their followers angry by claiming that they are all avataras of one Godess who is part of One Supreme God. Have you heard of Hinglaj, Karni, and Naganyechi; godesses from my part of the country, Rajasthan (and Sindh). Aupmanyav 06:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That list provided by you itself say they all are Avtars of One. Actually, claiming that 51 Shakti Peethas and other manifestations of Shakti (feminine aspect of Brahman) are not manefestations of One and are unrelated to one another will definately make followers angry because this view is nothing but ultimate ignorance and corruption. -Holy Ganga 06:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oolong, but which form of Hinduism doesn't it apply to? If you say it is the one practised by lay Hindu, then I don't think there is any real consensus on what he believes. I respect many dieties (not Gods), but believe in one God. I would think that is similar to respect/prayer in Abrahamic religions for Angels and saints but belief in one God. Also, I think the definitions of Monotheism and polytheism, which on the face of it seem like opposites, are cause for some of this confusion - while monotheism is defined as belief in existance of only one God or oneness of God, polytheism in Wiki is not defined accordingly but only as worship of many deities or divinities. This does not make them mutually exclusive. Also see worship for why the lines btwn worship/veneration are not clear in Abrahamic religions and this definition of polytheism would seem to fit Abrahamic religions at times since angels and saints are considered holy. I am out of my depth here, and am willing to be corrected given other references. --Pranathi 23:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Pranathi. Yes, you are quite right, monotheism and polytheism, at least as we have defined them, are not mutually exclusive. The distinctions between 'deities' and 'gods' are tenuous and arguable, and while Kali (to pick one of many possible examples) may not be 'God' (the big G there generally signifying omnipotence, God being the ruler of all), she would certainly fall within most definitions of a 'god' (or rather [[goddess]), and you will frequently see her referred to as such (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is only among non-Hindus, either). Although there may be some kinship between the devas in general and the angels of the Abrahamic religions, I would argue that they have more in common with the gods and goddesses of Greek, Norse or Celtic mythology, in spite of their fundamental unity in the eyes of most Hindu scholars. --Oolong 20:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oolong, Deva is an umbrella term used to represent both celestial beings (~angels) and gods. Interestingly, deity says Religions that avow monotheism may in fact be henotheistic in that they recognize the existence of several echelons of supernatural, immortal, deity-like beings in addition to the supreme God, such as angels, saints, Satan, demons, and devils, although these beings may not be considered deities. I suppose though that we are digressing. I can see that 'polytheism', as defined in Wiki as worship to dieties, applies to some strains of Hinduism - such as within versions of Vaishnavism/Shaivism. But monotheism/monism applies as well and is not limited to just some forms of Hinduism.--Pranathi 01:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Holy Ganga, I will bring your attention to your post of April 17th wherein you said 'Hinduism believes not only in One God (Brahman), but also in His Infinite manifestations around us and within us perpetually'. I am an advaitin and for me there is no God as I am God myself (I do not deny Godhead to you too or the bird in the tree or to the grain of sand in River Yamuna which flows in my city). Do I need to worship a God? For me the scriptures say 'Ayam Atma Brahma', 'So'ham', 'Shivo'ham', 'Aham Brahmasmi', 'Sarva Khalvidam Brahma'. May be you have not understood the scriptures. Even Lord Krishna has nothing to advice me, for I am Lord Krishna also. Do not insist on restricting Hinduism to one God (just because it is your belief), it is ignorance, it is Abrahamic. Let there be thousands, does it make a difference? Concentrate on 'Brahman' and not on a God, any. 'Brahman' is not a God, it is what constitutes the creation (wave, force, potential, not even a particle). The idea of a God is only a hinderance in understanding 'Brahman'. How can you be a Hindu while denying their belief to others?

'Into blinding darkness enter those who worship the unmanifest and into still greater darkness those who take delight in the manifest. He who understands both the manifest and the unmanifest together, crosses death through the unmanifest and attains immortality through the manifest.' (Ishavasya.12 & 14) Aupmanyav 12:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand.... what do you want to proove here? You are NOW presenting my point in different words. So, you still believe Hinduism is polythestic? ...i.e. It has 3,300 GODS? Do you still believe all manifestations of Shakti are unrelated to one another are not Avtars of One? If you still believe, Please show me some evidence from scriptures.

Yes, word Brahman is not equal to word God but God (not god) is most closest translation of Brahman (Ultimate reality) in English, just like you used word GODS for devas and devis. In reality neither God nor gods have exact meanings in Hindu philosphy. I never said that i have explained Brahman's philosphy and meanings in one line.-Holy Ganga 20:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to prove that the polytheists have just as much proof for their many Gods, 3300 or 330000, as you have for your one God and Hinduism accepts both the view points and allows its adherents to worship according to their belief. The very same books which exhort us to consider God as one, also mention tens of Gods (RigVeda or SriMadBhagawat). Why should one view given preference over the other? It is only a matter of personal belief. Aupmanyav 02:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

They didn't mentioned tens of GODs. I am again asking, would you share that proof with us? I think you are highly confused with the definations of Nirguna Brahman, Saguna Brahman, Avatar, devas (divine manifestations) angles, God , Gods and gods. Don't mix them all. eg, A person worshipping 51 Shakti Peethas of Shakti (feminine aspect Saguna Brahman) dosn't mean he is polythesist and worship 51 separate Gods. - Holy Ganga 11:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listing_of_Hindu_deities

Here you would find a long list of hindu deities. A note at the beginning says it is incomplete and misses out on several local and regional deities, all of whom cannot be listed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deity

The Vedic Gods: Indra, Surya, Agni, Vayu, Varuna, Yama, Kubera, Soma, Mitra, Kama, Gayatri, Aditi, Ushas, Sarasvati, Rudra.

That you believe in one God does not mean that all Hindus are obliged to toe your line.

Leave out my confusion, if interested, visit my page to know what I believe in. Aupmanyav 12:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You have again reached to the starting point and you have still not provided any scriptural evidence to support your claim that Hinduism is Polythestic. Just read first para of that article...."Within Smarta Hinduism, a variety of forms of God (NOT GODS) are seen as aspects of the ONE impersonal divine ground, Brahman (not Brahma). Brahman is seen as the universal spirit. Brahman is the ultimate, both transcendent and immanent the absolute infinite existence, the sum total of all that ever is, was, or ever shall be"....Do you mean to say this is Polytheism?? This is what article on polythesism explains about Smarta Hinduism... "Polytheistic views should be carefully distinguished from religions such as Smarta Hinduism, which present multiple divinities as different aspects of the same God. Rather than being polytheistic, Smarta Hinduism is a form of inclusive monotheism, where many deities are viewed as just different names for the single monotheistic God, and thus provide many paths to the same ultimate truth."

What you are trying to proove was only applicable to philosphy of Mīmāṃsā (one of the six Hindu philosophies). But at later stage even they retracted this view and accepted Ishvara. - Holy Ganga ^talk 14:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

HG, the problem is that you insist on interpretations of the words deva and god which mean that does not count as the other. You must accept that this interpretation is not universally agreed upon. Neither side of this argument could ever draw convincing support from Hindu scriptures, because they are in Sanskrit, and our disagreement lies above all at the level of translating into English; of course the Bhagavad Gita, or whichever source you look at, isn't going to say 'Hinduism is a polytheistic religion', because polytheism is a foreign concept (as, to a lesser extent, is 'Hinduism'). We can probably agree that there are many devas, who are manifestations of Brahman, but that doesn't bring us any closer to settling the question at hand, because that question is in English! If we accept that 'god', or 'deity', is a legitimate - if approximate - rendering into English of deva, then we must accept that 'polytheistic' is a legitimate description of at least some forms of Hinduism - regardless of whether there is only one Ishvara. --Oolong 20:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Count the names of Devatas and Devis in a personal Satyanarayana Puja (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8891/satya.txt). A hundred! More! Would we be praying (with sixteen procedures), to all of them if they were all the same. Monotheism (Dvaita) or Monism (Advaita) are only two of the ways which are suggested by some sages on a philosophical level and are in no way binding on Hindus, the multitude blissfully worships many Gods. Tell me, in case of any function at your home, marriage, upanayan, etc., do you take the name of just one God? Which is That One? Is Ganapati not invoked? Is Prajapati not invoked? Is Prithivi not invoked? Is Vishnu not invoked? Is Lakshmi not invoked? Is Gauri left out? Is Shiva left out? Are Indra, Agni, Vayu, Varun, left out? Are Graamdevatas, Kuladevataas, Kshetrapalas, Navagrahas, left out? How can you bind all Hindus in your Dvaita or Advaita? Which one? I am not clear about your position. Aupmanyav 05:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't repeat same thing again and again. You have not supported your previous posts till now. "Many Hindus venerate an array of deities, and consider them as manifestations of the one Supreme monistic Cosmic Spirit Brahman"...This explanation is enough to explain some Hindu views because you can also provide scriptural evidence for this belief. But you can't use word "Polytheism" (Abrahmic religious concept) for Hinduism because you can't provide scriptural support. Instead of misguiding and confusing readers by using Abrahmic religions defined words, it's better to explain Hindu view in some lines. I am not binding Hindus, I am only defining things based on scriptures and not on imagination. I am not binding Hinduism in one word terms of Abrahmic religions like you. - Holy Ganga ^talk 11:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not monopolize the Hinduism page. I have been worshipping many Gods since my childhood and so has done my father and before him, his father. Tell me, why each and every verse of RigVeda is dedicated to a separate God? I agree that some sages have said that they are but one, but it is their personal opinion and I do not agree to it. Do you have the authority to throw me out of the Hindu fold? Why does SriMadBhagawat mentions many Gods? What was the need to have Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva separately, if they were one? Ask any Madhva if he would worship Shiva or a Lingayat if he would worship Krishna? Hinduism is designed to be a democratic religious tradition. Aupmanyav 11:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

See, There is no place for personal opinions here. Dear, i agree with you what you are saying...to explain that in detail (without misguiding and confusion), there is already a line "Many Hindus venerate an array of deities, and consider them as manifestations of the one Supreme monistic Cosmic Spirit Brahman and other...." and this line don't contradict Hindu scriptures but you can't strictly bind Hinduism by using words like "Polytheist" for which there is no scriptural support. Using such words means misguiding a reader. It's better to explain Hindu concepts in some lines rather than strictly using such misguiding words wrt Hinduism. Tell me out of which 6 Hindu Philosphies, they are ready to use words Polytheism? There is no place for personal views or personal misunderstandings here. Just provide scriptural evidence and go ahead.- Holy Ganga ^talk 11:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Re "Aryan Vedas": Deleting the word "Aryan" makes the the sentence into gibberish, since the reference to "other people" majkes no sense. If your prefer put "Vedic peoples" or "Indo-Aryan". No-one disputes that the Vedas originated with a specific group of people in India, and then spread. This is not about AIT.

Re: Polytheism. This is not an "Abrahamic religion concept" at all, at least no more so than "monotheism". It all depends how you define a "god". It's really about practice rather than belief, since its possible to believe in a unified personality-less ground of "beingness" while accepting the existence of multiple, perhaps competing, beings with distinctive characters. Abrahamic monotheism generally does not make this distinction, insisting on a single being with distinct characteristics, and no state of being-qua-being prior to it. Paul B 11:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not revert again, having reached my limit; sadly this is a rule that Holy Ganga shamelessly ignores, while adding wholly inaccurate edit summaries. Paul B 12:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's you who shamelessly added major changes and gave misguided reason for that. I only reverted that. - Holy Ganga ^talk 12:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why some people here are stressing on adding word "Polytheism" specifically when they can't provide any scriptural support? Why not Monotheism, etc.? No other encyclopedia or reputed Hindu website directly tries to define Hinduism with words which are not compatible with Hinduism and if used they will only misguide and add confusion in the readers mind. There is no place for personal opinions. Don't make changes based on that. Soon some confused Muslims, Christians will also come here in Hindu Avatar and will start editing as per their personal opinions. So, provide scriptural evidence and go ahead and if you can't provide support for your claim than simply don't stress on adding that word or opinion and follow the path of other reputed encyclopedias (like Encarta) and reputed Hindu websites. - Holy Ganga ^talk 12:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What has "scriptural evidence" got to do with anything? You write like a protestant Christian. Hinduism is a set of practices and traditions. You have not answered any of my points, raised here ir in edit summaries. Your edit leaves the opening para sematically nonsensical. Your criticisms of hasty edits apply to yourself. I made no "major changes" at all. Paul B 12:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Scriptures are everything when writing an article on Hinduism. If scriptures are nothing , then on what bases you are trying to define Hinduism? Why are you stressing on adding confused , misguiding words like polytheist right at the top which are rejected by all other reputed encyclopedias and Hinduism websites. I too support Vedic people, you may add that but there is no point in writing "Aryan Vedas" right at the top when word Aryan is itself a highly disputed word. To correct one line, it's not necessary to add confusing words to another line. As far as word Polytheist is concerned, see my last post. These are major changes because you reverted them without support. I only reverted your edits. - Holy Ganga ^talk 13:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted with a clear explanation, that you have still not even responded to. The Vedas are Indo-Aryan no-one disputes that. Cutting that out that makes nonsense of the reference to "other people" at the end of the sentence. This is the third time I have pointed this out, and you have ignored, or possibly failed to grasp, the point. I did not "add" polytheist. It was deleted by you and I restored it. Most encyclopedias define Hinduism as a complex of traditions and practices that have incorporated scriptures of various kinds but are not defined by or dependent "scripture" in the way that Abrahamic religions are. That includes the Ecarta encyclopedia that you have just added. It does not describe Hinduism as "monotheistic". Your concept of Hinduism seems to be strangly influenced by Abrahamic ideas, like that of the Arya Samaj Paul B 13:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know on what bases you are saying all this. You reverted my edits back to Aryan Vedas and Polytheist. I don't have any problem if you add Vedic people. But YES, Aryan has different disputed meanings. Some believe it is used for a race while others reject that because for them it is just a term which means Nobel. Aryan Vedas is a misguiding term which shouldn't be right at the top. Now you are saying you didn't add polytheist but you "reverted" it back by claiming "Polytheism ref should stay as part of range of practice". What does that mean? Aren't you condradicting yourself? While mentioning traditions and practies, nowhere these encyclopedias go against basics of Hindu scriptures, they didn't add misguiding and confusing words to define Hinduism but some of your edits were going against Hindu scriptures because they were without any support. It's better to explain such concepts in detail rather than using misguiding words. Who said i want to describe Hinduism in strictly Monothetic concept? It was you who added Polytheist back and now claming that you did not "add" polytheist. - Holy Ganga ^talk 14:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You have not answered my question about the reason so many Gods are mentioned and venerated in the Vedas and in SriMadBhagawatam. Since you wanted a scriptural proof, here is one from RigVeda:

'Not one of you, ye Gods, is small, none of you is a feeble child: all of you, verily, are great. Thus be ye lauded, you destroyers of the foe, you thirty-three Deities, the Gods of man, the Holy Ones. As such defend and succor us, with benedictions speak to us: lead us not from our fathers’ and from Manu’s path into the distance far away. You Deities who stay with us, and all you Gods of all mankind, give us your wide protection, give shelter for cattle and for steed.' (Rig Veda 8.30)

If you are a hindu, agree to it, nobody can ignore RigVeda. If still not satisfied, I will come up with more. Monotheism or monism are just two flavours of Hinduism. Aupmanyav 15:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I definately agree with Rig-Veda but as a whole and not in parts. You are saying there are many dieties. Ofcourse i agree with you. The most closest interpretation of Vedas in your terms (many dieties) is by Smarta Hinduism but word like Polytheism is not even acceptable in Smarta Hinduism. Within Smarta Hinduism, a variety of forms of God are seen as aspects of the one impersonal divine ground, Brahman. Brahman is seen as the universal spirit. Brahman is the ultimate, both transcendent and immanent the absolute infinite existence, the sum total of all that ever is, was, or ever shall be. Brahman is not a God in the monotheistic sense, as it is not imbued with any limiting characteristics, not even those of being and non-being, and this is reflected in the fact that in Sanskrit, the word Brahman is of neuter (as opposed to masculine or feminine) gender. Some of Hinduism's adherents are Smarta Hinduism, seeing multiple manifestations of the one source of being, which is often confused by non-hindus as being western concept of polytheism. It manifests itself in innumerable forms and shapes. As Purusha (Universal Male), He enters Prakriti (Nature, Matter or Divine Energy) and brings forth the numerous worlds and beings into existence. He upholds His entire creation with His unlimited powers. It is however properly seen as one unity, with the personal gods being different aspects of one Supreme Being, like a single beam of light separated into colours by a prism, and are valid to worship. This is the closet thing you can find in 6 types of Hindu philosphies (Interpretations of Scriptures) but even this interpretation ( of Vedas by Smarta Hinduism) is not compatible with words like Polytheism. Swami Vivekananda, a follower of Ramakrishna, along with many others, who brought Hindu beliefs to the West, were all Smarta in belief. Other denominations of Hinduism, don't hold this belief strictly and more closely (not exactly) adhere to monotheistic concept. No reputed Hindu site, No reputed encyclopedia now use words like Polytheism (and to some extent Monotheism) for Hinduism simply because they are misguiding, confused and incomplete terms for Hindu concept of God. There should be no place for such words while defining Hinduism. - Holy Ganga ^talk 16:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I too agree to RigVeda as a whole and not to the part which says that all Gods are but aspects of one, and please do not mistake me for a smarta, because I am not one. I am a plain and simple practicing Hindu polytheist. I worship Vishnu and His avataras, Shiva, Durga, Kartikeya, Ganesh, Hanuman, Lakshmi, Parvati, and Saraswati. Very mundane, nothing esoteric, but that is my belief. As far as I know, Hinduism has not made it compulsory for its adherents to prescribe to Monotheism or Monism. So, can I mention that Hinduism (proudly, unabashedly, unapologetically) includes polytheism also and does not give any special purchase to Monists, Monotheists, or Atheists. Once we are through with such childish insistences, we could proceed with improving the Hinduism articles. Regards. Aupmanyav 06:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As i said, you may believe (or understand) things in any way you want but there should be no place for personal opinions. Don't make changes based on that. Soon some confused Muslims, Christians will also come here in Hindu Avatar and will start editing as per their personal opinions. So, provide solid support based on Hindu scriptures (or there interpretations by different schools of thought) and go ahead or don't make major changes. I agree, we can't improve this article further with such childish insistences. Regards.- Holy Ganga ^talk 09:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you would agree that there are many Hindus who do not belong to any particular school of thought, what about them? Are they Hindus? Or being a Madhva, an Advaitin, or a follower of Ramanujacharya or Nimbarkacharya or Vallabhacharya or Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is compulsory for a hindu (my homage to all these and other acharyas of Hinduism whom I rever equally but differ from all of them)? Aupmanyav 13:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can call himself Hindu..even a Sikh or a Jain. Ignorant Hindu as well as Knowledgeable Hindu both are eligible Hindus...Even that Hindu is a Hindu who worship Christ or Allah, even that who wants to start his own 'mata'. But what is Hinduism? What are it's Philosphies? Who are the main personalities of Hinduism and what's their beliefs and interpretations. In short What are the teachings of Vedas and other Hindu scriptures?.. that's the topic here. You can't bring things or words which goes against some of the basics of Hinduism or can't explain concept of God in Hinduism. By the way, Which 'mata' says Hinduism is polytheist in Abrahmic sense? Shame, because you want to bind Hinduism with words like Polytheism which simply can't explain Hindu concept. The very first book of the Rig Veda,1:164:46 states,

  "एकं सद विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्य" - ekam sad vipuraa bahudha vadantya

Truth is One, but sages call it by many names. This was/is an inherent part of Hinduism which teach that the many forms of God, i.e., Vishnu, Shiva, or Devi merely represent aspects of a single or underlying divine power or Brahman (see articles on Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman). - Holy Ganga ^talk 15:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would a sikh, a jain, or a buddhist call himself as a Hindu? You are being uncharitable by calling others as ignorant. A christian or a muslim would not agree to the vedic injunction 'ekam sat, vipra bahudha vadanti', that is why they cannot be included in the the hindu umbrella. They say that their version is the truth. They refuse 'vipra bahudha vadanti' and you also are doing the same. You are not accepting the views other than your own. I have never denied 'ekam sat'. I neither want to bind Hinduism to polytheism nor to monotheism, since 'vipra bahudha vadanti'. I want to keep it free as it always has been. I accept your right to your monotheistic views. This is your 'matam'. Perhaps some day, I would go and argue for change in 'Nirguna' and 'Saguna' 'Brahman' pages also. My own 'Brahman' is Saguna and very physical, constituting you, me and everything else in the universe; and not divine which I could worship, but that is my 'matam'. Aupmanyav 03:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you know history of word "Hindu" and for whom it was used. Ofcourse, now it's used for followers of a particular religion. Yes, you tried to bind hinduism like Abrahmic religions. This discussion between us was started when you included word "Polytheism" for Hindu concept of God which i reverted because of the reasons i explained with support many times. You are welcome to bring changes in 'Nirguna' and 'Saguna' pages also. Hope you will not bring your personal ideas in those articles and everything you contribute there will have a solid support (not your personal opinions). - Holy Ganga ^talk 07:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What Sankara, Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, or Chaitanya said is their opinion (matam) and that is why there are differences. Hinduism does not favour any particular 'mata' as long as 'Dharma' is followed. Just as their 'mata' is valid, so is the 'mata' of those people who worship many Gods. When I read your posts, I feel so Abrahamic and that is a shame. Book One, Hymn One of the RigVeda says in its second verse, 'Worthy is Agni to be praised by living as by ancient seers, He shall bring hitherward the Gods' (अग्निः पूर्वेभिर्र्षिभिरीड्यो नूतनैरुत | स देवानेह वक्षति ||). How do you answer that? I am quoting from the book that, I suppose, you value the most. Mentioning that Hindus are only monotheists or monists destroys all freedom of search for truth. Hinduism is certainly not that. Aupmanyav 06:18, 4 May 2006 (UT

You are asking me same thing once again which i don't know how many times i have explained before but you have not provided any support for your personal claim till now, except repeating same thing (misunderstanding) again and again. Now , Once again (after so many attempts), you are again asking same thing in new words. You are equating Hindu concept of Devas with Abrahmic concept of God without any base and understanding. Even after mentioning many dieties, It is clear to any knowledgeable person that Rig Veda doesn't promote Polytheism which you are trying to compare with Abrahmic religions. If you can't understand Hinduism , it's your problem but nothing will be included in this article based on your personal misunderstandings, nothing will be included if you can't provide support.- Holy Ganga ^talk 15:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

'The truth is - Hinduism is monotheistic (Believes in One God)' (http://www.csuohio.edu/hindu/hindusimmeaning.htm). Things like this gladden the heart of missionaries and mullahs - 'after all you also believe in one God, so what is special about Hinduism'? What is special about Hinduism (unlike all religions of the world, even Buddhism which ties you to Nibbana) is that it allows people to arrive at their own conclusions, and that include the whole range (polytheism, pantheism, henotheism, monotheism, monism, atheism, and whatever else according to their inclinations and understanding). But it ordaines Dharma for all. Believe what you will (of course, silly ideas would not stand scrutiny), but fulfill your duty, because that is important for your family and your society. Am I right? May be my understanding of Hinduism is wrong and the statement above is correct! Aupmanyav 13:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

When did i say Hinduism is Monotheistic in Abrahmic sense? Why are you stressing on word polytheism when today no other reputed encyclopedias , Hindu websites and scholars use this limited word to explain concept of God in Hinduism? As i explained (incase you are reading my replies), such words are limited words with limited meanings and can't be strictly used to explain concept of God in Hinduism. I am sorry to say but you who are speaking like misunderstood mullas and missionaries (hope they are not around in Hindu avatar). It is best to approach Hinduism through its teachings and not on personal misunderstandings which are without any base and support.- Holy Ganga ^talk 15:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Teachings of even the greatest of sages are their personal opinions. If one suits you, fine, otherwise you have to find your own truth. If any encyclopedia, hindu web-site, or scholar does not understand this, they have not understood Hinduism. That is why there are matantaras (differences of opinion), otherwise we would have had our own Bible or Qur'an. How come Sankara said there is nothing else in this world but God whereas Madhva said God and Jiva are essentially different? Other Acharyas diferred from both of them. Aupmanyav 12:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So, in short...you also want your personal opinion to be included here. You don't agree with any Hindu philosphy, so you want to add your personal understanding of Hinduism in this article. Oh dear, that will create mess here.... every misunderstood mullah, missionary and ignorant Hindu will add anything he want to add about Hinduism. As i already said, It is best to approach any religion through its teachings and not on personal understandings (or misunderstandings) which are without any base and support. - Holy Ganga ^talk 17:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not want my personal opinion to be included in Wikipedia:Hinduism. What I want is freedom, freedom to worship any number of Gods as it was done in the Vedas and in indigenous Hinduism, both of whom were polytheistic; or none, as opined by Kapila in Samkhya or Kanada in Vaisheshika. That does not make me any less Hindu. Monism and Monotheism came only later. Aupmanyav 02:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The religion of dark Gods

You also must have wondered at the phenomena. All the major Gods in Hinduism are dark. Shiva, Vishnu, Rama, Krishna. Ganesha, though he is mostly shown as fair, but the elephants head indicates he also should be taken as dark and so are Parvati, Kali and so many other godesses. Only Brahma and the lesser Gods may be fair. Does that tell a story? Aupmanyav 16:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Durga is an important goddess and she is quite fair.--SohanDsouza 11:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all God has no color or skin. Furthermore the deities Parvati, Durga (under the epithet Gauri), Ganesha, Rama, etc are fair, though traditionally Rama is shown in blue. And that tells no story, because the Vedic deities did not have solid anthropomorphic forms, they only appear as blurred spirits--manifestations of natural forces and the language describing them is highly metaphorical. Only in Puranic times, after Jains and the Buddhists had started worshipping idols of Buddha and mahavira, the Hindus also imitated them and started making well-formed idols and giving them exact descriptions and color. Cygnus_hansa 01:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In reality, Shiva is fair-skinned who has a blue neck due to the poison he took. Though Rama are Krishna are dark, their female counterpart Sita and Radha are both fair. Devi, the sumprme goddess in Shaktism is fair. Ganesha's elephant head is pink/yellow so it probably indicates that he is fair, like the rest of his body. The Vedic gods are all fair and they are still worshipped to a lesser extent. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The common modern representation of the gods is not necessarily how they were originally thought of, or how they were originally shown. There has been an increase in seeing fair colour as 'good' in the subcontinent, over the centuries. See the article on Krishna and changes in how he has been represented. Marco Polo said of south Indians 'they show gods and their idols as black and their devils white' (Marco Polo, The Travels). It would be wrong to assume that modern prejudices existed in other times. Imc 16:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section is way too long

At most it, should be a paragragh. Not 3 paragraphs. --Dangerous-Boy 18:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have made it shorter. Christianity has a criticism section, Islam and Judaism don't, but all should be handled the same way. There should only be a short summary and a link to the Criticism article. --Sendrin 23:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Conversion?

I heard you cannot convert to Hinduism and that you must be born into it. But what is to stop someone from becoming Hindu? How can you tell someone, "Your not Hindu, becasue you were not born into it. You do everything a Hindu must do, but you still are not one"?

Everyone is Hindu. Even bible thumpers. :-)--Dangerous-Boy 18:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It depends upon the contemporary Hindu soceity whether they consider a converted non-Hindu as a Hindu or not. There is no general "yes" or "no".Cygnus_hansa 19:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not correct that you cannot convert to Hinduism. We would certainly like that you to have studied and believe in the teachings, foremost (if you would like to believe in a God/Gods) that He does not play favourites and it rewards all good people absolutely equally and that you should not snigger at the belief of other people but try to understand them; and that you would search for truth and follow it unhesitatingly. It is the simplest procedure in the world, just say yes to yourself, no baths, no circumcision. In case of any problem, contact me, I will adopt you to give you a Veda mentioned, twice born, venerated lineage (gotra), after which nobody would be able to object (otherwise also, if you have studied about Hinduism, it is equal to a new birth). Bible and Qur'an thumpers are not Hindus because their philosophy is exclusive. Aupmanyav 10:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Monotheism

Could somebody please explain "Hinduism is considered Monotheistic by many", who are "many" ? Amir85 14:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is article is good but not in FA status, There are very few inline citations for such big article and many unverified claims. Please address these shortcomings. Amir85 05:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are the problems about the link which some are insisting that its the source for the cliam "the religion is still considered monotheistic by many" [2]

1. It doesn't provide anything to address or even mention that Hinduism is purely Monotheism. The only thing it says is "...Hinduism is both monotheistic and polytheistic believing in one God as well as some demigods and is based on scriptures and evolving proven spiritual and mystical experiences of many individual souls..."

I don't think anyone here is interested in projecting Hinduism in purely Monotheistic defination. From where did you get that? But is that mean it is Polythestic? That is true only for Ignorants and is absolutely not correct. Still it fits more in Monothestic defination rather than polythestic. Limited Abrahmic definations are not applicable to Hinduism and this link is beautifully explaining Concept of God in Hinduism. If you or anyone else have another better link, that's surely welcome. - Holy Ganga 20:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

2. The provided link is a pro-Hindu website which attacks Christianity and Islam. "...When religion becomes organized, man ceases to be free. It is not God that is worshipped but the group or the authority that claims to speak in his name. It is not faith, but just social idolatry. God is not like a father in a patriarchal society, who has His favorite children to whom He communicates. This idea seems rather archaic and crude. Hinduism believes in behavior than belief and experience over authority. In the words of S. Radhakrishnan, Prophetic religion is severe, militant, uncompromising, intolerant, while mystic religions are renouncing, and peaceful. He further asks, " Is it an accident that Hitler and Mussolini, have been brought up in Roman Catholic societies, where it is blasphemous to criticize infallible authority?" (For information on Monotheism and its discontent and Crusades and Jihad, refer to chapters on Glimpses VI and Conversion and God Wars: The triumph of the jealous God)..." repudiating one of the main pillars of WP which is neutrality. Amir85 13:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The view in no way repudates wikipedia pillar of neutrality. Neutrality must be seen as a whole (from the full article), not just by one line. And the "Deities" section of the article clearly mentions that one branch of Hindu philosophy (Mimamsa) is clearly polytheistic. And a link is just a link: it only provides a witten evidence that somebody has spoken something. It neither strenghthens nor weakens NPOV; it just provides an evidence of what the Hindus think themselves to be. What do you think to be authentic source--do the sources we're supposed to cite need to be verified by Hazrat Jibrael (angel Gabriel) or by Allah himself? I personally believe that the contents of the said webpage are logically correct and factually true. Cygnus_hansa 20:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Amir should convert to Zoroastrianism.--Dangerous-Boy 05:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And Holy Ganga, Hinduism is neither polytheistic nor Monotheistic, there are a whole lot of people who are monists. Don't we say 'Kan Kan mein Bhagwan'? For such people, there is nothing other than 'Brahman' in this world. The problem is that all of you are trying to define Hinduism, and that is like 'Brahman', Neti, Neti; not this, not this. Hinduism has never put any bar to anyone's search for truth and it accepts that people will arrive at various results after their search, and all these answers are valid, till the person fulfills his/her 'Dharma'. So, it is wrong to define Hinduism by tags such as polytheist, monotheist, monist, henotheist. It will always be all. It is a beautiful rainbow and you would find all colors in it, and without these colors, it would not be a rainbow. Aupmanyav 05:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Amir, www.atributetohinduism.com is a pro-hindu site, www.geocities.com/athens/rhodes.. is a pro-hindu site. Do you mean to say that we should look-up only in the Christian, Islamic, and Ambedkar sites to get a neutral view? Will that be neutrality? Hindus have never taken a poll of how many of its adherents are polytheistic, or monotheistic, or monists, or atheists; they do not need to, that is a person's own belief and the person is free to change it anytime he/she so desires. That does not make him/her any less Hindu. My own beliefs have changed from being a Shaivite, to monist, to Vaishnavite, to atheist; so what? Aupmanyav 05:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav--agreed.Cygnus_hansa 08:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

When you claim "Hinduism is considered Monotheistic by many", the word "many" should have been concluded from viewpoints of various Secular scholar or "thinkers" not some pro-Hindu sites backed by BJP or RSS's extreme wings who attacks other religions (I'm no religious but from what I know Hinduism is one of the most tolerant religions in the whole universe and such attacks does not belong to a true Hindu).

About the number adherents of Hinduism in India, somebody is insisting on putting the number 960 million ! I live in India and from the latest census 82% of India are Hindus which indicates an estimated 840 - 890 million. Be Bindaas ! Amir85 06:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Amir, you are not getting things right. www.atributetohinduism.com is not a Hindutva or RSS backed website. It is a very sane and logical site. I can give you many pro-Hindutva websites, who think that all Muslims must be purged off from the world. But atributetohinduism is not one of them. And these attacks are just defensive, not offensive. About the number--not all the Hindus are Indians. There are millions of Hindus in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, the US, UK, Srilanka, etc. Cygnus_hansa 08:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Amir, you are right, Hinduism is one of the most tolerant religions in the world along with Buddhism and Jainism. That some Hindu doctrines are monotheistic does not require much research. SriVaishnavas in particular pray only to Vishnu. There are Hindus who would say 'There is only one God' (Eko Sat, Vipra Bahudha Vadanti; One exists, wise say that in many ways; equivalent to 'La Ilaha Il Allah') as also those who would say (Sarva Khalvidam Brahma, All creation is Brahma). These very people would unhesitatingly bow to various deities. Hindus should not be branded one way or the other. We are blissfully many flavoured. I do not care about numbers. Muslims are in a competition with Christians; we, at present, are not. 1.1 billion or 900 million, how does it matter? If we have not reached that landmark, we will do so soon, thanks to our birth rate. Aupmanyav 02:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have an interesting observation on this subject. Hinduism in its highest form is truly a monotheistic religion. In what basis is that statement made? Well, I have noticed (and read) that many Hindu saints who have realized God proclaimed the statement "I am He" with full divine insight. For example, when Sri Ramakrishna had realized the Ultimate Truth, he proclaimed that Brahman alone exist. Moreover, highly spiritual advanced souls pay homeage to the universal spirit without form. Paramahansa Yogananda also made similiar statements. Please take note that these people are not ordinary religious souls. They have reached the pinnacle of their evolution and are talking about truths from their own experiences. They could realize the unity of creation and experience their bliss without any prejudices or disagreements with other religions. Sri Ramakrishna also recognized the validity of the Muslim, Christian and Buddhist faiths. Paramahansa Yogananda also showed the West the similiarity of the Christian teachings with Hindu thought. It is correct to view Hinduism as BOTH a monotheistic AND a polytheistic religion. However it is not correct to view Hinduism as either this OR that. If one feels comfortable in viewing Hinduism as a polytheistic religion, continue to do so! It does not mean that the follower has a wrong understanding of Hinduism! He may have a lower level of understanding of Hinduism but that does not make him wrong! That is what makes Hinduism a great religion. It gives the devotee freedom to express the way one prays to God according to his/her understanding of complex spiritual truths. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If anybody says 'I am He', it would be Monism (Advaita - one and no other) and not Monotheism (Dvaita - God and me). There is nothing new in what these pinnacled titled paramhansas have said, for monists even a grain of sand is 'paramhansa', in which case there is nothing that you can term as 'ordinary religious soul'. If a polytheist is not wrong then why should his belief be termed as a 'lower level of understanding'. Just because you might not be one? Christians and Muslims faiths, like the non-proliferation treaty, are exclusive, therefore not valid according to Hindu thought. Aupmanyav 08:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to clarify my statement. A 'higher level of understanding' does NOT mean 'a better level of understanding'. Let me give you an example. Is being in grade 2 BETTER than being in grade 1? Is being in a third year of a university education BETTER than being in the second year? No! The lower level is as important as the higher level. If the lower does not exist, the higher will cease to be. BOTH have a very important part to play in understanding spiritual truths. And if anyone says 'I am He' that individual has to be qualified to say such a statement; meaning he/she has to realize the Ultimate Truth. If an ignorant person says this, his/her words will have little meaning and would not make much sense. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And where to get this certificate from? Jad Bharat was not recognized by king's lackeys. Aupmanyav 06:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

missing article

Vasanas is currently listed at Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year. I suspect someone who watches this page might be able to write at least a stub on this topic. If you can, please do (and delete the topic from the various requested articles pages it appears on). Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Peer review

in case you didn't know, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Peer review has been created. please start suggesting articles for it. --Dangerous-Boy 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week

the Wikipedia:Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week is now created. feel free to use it. --Dangerous-Boy 19:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism related Featured Pictures

You may upload important and high quality pictures at Wikimedia Commons.[3]

Also, Try to make more and more good quality Hinduism related pictures as Featured Pictures by submitting them here.

You may support or oppose Featured picture candidates by voting here. - Holy Ganga 20:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming and transliteration to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vedic)

Trying to a get a concensus on this. Your input is appreciated. I'm trying to move the naming and transliteration formating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vedic).--Dangerous-Boy 08:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy with moving this out, and including this within the other naming conventions. But why use the term Vedic? The application of these formal transliteration schemes is normally to all transliteration that is part of scholarly study. That would include most religious writing, myth, and also historical works, hence a much wider field than that generally implied by Vedic. I'm not sure of the best term, but an alternative that comes to mind immediately is 'Indic'. Imc 20:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid Buddhists would get offended if I named it to Indic. The 4 vedic religions are Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. That's why i named it that. They always try to be seperate. I was trying to promote some kind of coordination on all four.--Dangerous-Boy 11:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's being merged with Indic now.--Dangerous-Boy 06:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation

Nice new pictures but really dont forget to cite things when you make claims like "oldest", "second richest" etc. And please use good citations - not random sites. --Blacksun 19:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Objectives or Pursuits?

I feel that the title should be 'The four pursuits of life' instead of 'The four objectives of life'. Minor play of words but makes a difference I suppose.

Moreover, I have also added another interpretetion about the pursuits which is as follows:

Another perspective on these (i.e. dharma, artha, kama, moksha) is that arth and kama are to be pursued like a river which is bounded by dharma and moksha on the two sides.

That is a very good analogy, thanks, but not one which we could include in the article, it would increase length. Aupmanyav 04:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Etymology again

I have objections to the following statement in etymology: 'Until about 19th century the term Hindu implied a culture and ethnicity and not a religion. When the British government started periodic censuses and established a legal system, the need arose to define Hinduism as a distinct religion, along the lines of Christianity or Islam. Some scholars, such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak, defined it as a religion based on the Vedas, using the analogy of the Bible being the basis of Christianity and the Qur'an being the Muslim scripture.'
There is no reason why (the hell) all people in India after 8th or 10th Century when muslims had established their suzerainty in parts of India, would be known as Hindus. This statement is fallacious and only warms the hearts of the Hindutvavadis (I am also one of them, but do not go this far in absurdity). It is already mentioned in the opening paragraph that Hinduism is also known as 'Vaidika Dharma', there is no need to repeat the last line in etymology. The biblical or the quranic analogy is so very inadequate. Vedas are Hinduism, but Hinduism is not just Vedas. Hinduism is already defined in the opening paragraph. My suggestion is to remove the whole paragraph. It only adds to the length of the article. I would like to know what other readers think about it. There has been unnecessary controversy about all people being known as Hindus, let us avoid it. Aupmanyav 10:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Move the paragraph to History of Hinduism. --Dangerous-Boy 08:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the following which appears in Etymology: "According to Historical linguistics, Proto-Indo-Iranian / *s / is preserved in the Indo-Aryan languages (including Sanskrit as / s /) but was changed to / h / in prevocalic position in the Iranian branch (including Avestan and Old Persian); see also Indo-European sound laws." It sort of stops the flow. Is it really necessary? Would not people understand this without technicalities. IMHO, this could be removed. I would request Cygnus_hansa and Dangerous_Boy, especially, who might be interested in this to give their opinion. Aupmanyav 11:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support keeping this fact in place and oppose its removal. Even if it stops the flow, it is a fact, which gives a good explanation of the name. Otherwise why the hell should the Sanskrit word Sindhu become Hindu, and governed by what laws? And this is not the Simple English encyclopedia. Here statements then and there would contain technical jargon, necessary for explanation. If one does not understand them, he is welcome to click on the link to that jargon.Cygnus_hansa 14:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Can Hare Krishnas be considered Hindus?

This doesn't affect this article as such, but I'm hoping for a third-party look at the International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness article which, by use of the Hinduism temp[late, claims to be part of Hinduism. Sfacets 04:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's arguable. Without a doubt they stem from Hindu traditions, and just about fall within the (necessarily) loose definition of Hinduism as 'Relgion originating India, excluding Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism'. Prabhupada wasn't keen on the term 'Hindu' though (although he seems to have wavered on this), and some Hindus feel the movement is too far removed from what they know as Hinduism to be included. For my part, I think it probably should be, but it's not a simple question... --Oolong 13:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Religions are what their adherents make it. Time will decide if they want to be hindus or not. Aupmanyav 04:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Spellings in the articles

I would like to suggest that the spelling of Yuga should be Yug, as it is pronounced with no emphasis on G. Also name of lord Ram should be spelt as Ram and not Rama as it is pronounced normally since Ram is also pronounced without any emphasis on M. This is true for most of the sanskritn words spelt in English.

Please let me know if this can be considered !

Best Regards

Gurudatt 13:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Let it be, Guru. M in RAma does not have an enlongated sound, but it is not 'halanta' (half sound) either. Aupmanyav 04:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The transliterations in this articles are from direct Sanskrit, and not from Hindi. In Modern Hindi, the last vowel of राम which is called the schwa /ə/ (हिन्दी : अ ) is not pronounced. But in Sanskrit IT IS PRONOUNCED. Hence the spelling of Rama should be Rāma. In Hindi it would be Rām. So the Sanskrit names in this articles must continue as such. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vedic). Cygnus_hansa 20:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Need clarification on Smartism, Denominations.

'Smartism, in contrast, believes in all religions being the same and leading to a pantheistic God'. All religions or all denominations of Hinduism? Was Sankara aware of the exclusivism of Abrahamic religions? Do the present-day Smartas agree to the view above? Read the differences between Hinduism and Christianity as mentioned by Chandrashekharendra Saraswati Swamigal at http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part2/chap3.htm. He also said 'All troubles in this world start only when attempts are made to wean away people from their native religion to convert them to a new faith, by holding out the temptation that people can attain salvation only if they embrace that new faith' (http://www.kamakoti.org/acall/ac-godisone.html). In view of that can we say that Hinduism and Christianity or Islam are same? Is it not Adharma? Aupmanyav 12:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Swamigal said 'All knowledge is from Vedas, so all religions are from Vedas'. But perhaps Abrahamic religions faltered somewhere. Aupmanyav 17:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Hindus is up for deletion!

List of Hindus is up for deletion!--Dangerous-Boy 18:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's crazy! Surely we've got space to list all the world's Hindus here! --Oolong 11:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation required for stats

I commented out the following statement: Vaishnavism has 580 million followers, while Shaivism has 220 million followers.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› .

We cannot leave statements needing sourcing in a featured article. Can anybody try to find stats for these? Circeus 03:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Adherents.com gives some figures and refers to Encyclopedia Brittanica. Would somebody kindly do the follow-up. Aupmanyav 05:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow

Its amazing how fast the quality of the article has dropped. Ignoring everything else, lets look at criticism section:

• "Hindus would also argue that Hindu scriptures are not unique in containing presecriptions that are not amenable to modern societal practices, e.g., it can be argued that both Islam and Christianity allow the inhuman practice of slavery." - umm is this supposed to be criticism of hinduism section or other religions? Also, ya that does not even come close to meeting FA quality.
• Only a month ago, criticism section was nicely fleshed out - it was a nice balance of criticisms that exist in reality balanced by referenced counterviews. Now it looks like a sick little puppy.

Seriously, you guys should just go ahead and remove the criticism section instead of having this drivel. --Blacksun 07:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the section has become more of counter-criticismCygnus_hansa 20:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I have reverted it back to something similar to the version that was accepted during FARC. If anyone has some serious issues with that we can talk about it here. However, looking at the history I see mostly anonymous edits and one edit by de gizza where he removed hindutva paragraph stating that it is not relevant to this article (which I humbly disagree)--Blacksun 20:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

hindutva is more politcal and Indian oriented than religious and the article is long enough. Don't need another paragraph--Dangerous-Boy 18:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed Hindutva criticism because it is not criticising Hinduism as a whole. I think it should be removed because most Hindus do not follow. It should of course be mentioned on the Hindutva page. But it is wrong to add criticism here. It is like having criticism for just Vaishnavism or a particular sect of Hinduism. The Hinduism page should only be focused on Hinduism overall, not particular organisations in Hinduism. Gizza^{Chat ©} 21:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is hardly unusual to include political-religious criticism in an article about a religion. Also, I humbly disagree with your statement that not many people "follow it." Ayodhya issue is central to quite a few Hindus and it has direct connections with Hinduism. What is the point of shiphoning everything to obscure articles that a non-Hindu would never look at? I highly doubt anyone that is not familiar with Hinduism would bother looking at Hindutva. As a result, this article should atleast provide a glimpse of things related to current affairs. Furthermore, Hindutva can be found present amongst NRI's too. Yes, maybe that is an alien feature to a Bali Hindu but considering that vast majority of Hindus are closely related to India it is not a misrepresentation to include that here. No one is saying that all Hindus subscribe to Hindutva but it is certainly warranted to be part of criticism as quite simply that is one of the major criticisms/debate in Hinduism today. Being technical about it will not change the reality. --Blacksun 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My only concern is that the only time that Hindutva is mentioned in the article is when it is criticised. If you want to have a criticism of Hindutva then it should also be mentioned earlier on in the article. When a non-editor reads this article and comes to the criticism section, he/she will think Oh, so one problem in Hinduism is a Hindu nationalist movement called Hindutva. It does not reflect NPOV. It makes the reader believe Hindutva definately has to be a bad thing. There should a paragraph about Hindutva before somewhere before the criticism section so that the reader realises that it is an organisation which is seen as extreme or bad by some but necessarily rather than an extreme organisation. Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hindutva concerns many Hindus intimately, and Hindutva is not only Ayodhya. It includes the question of scanty clothes, indecent advertising and films, increasing consumption of alcohol, the Saraswati paintings by Hussain, use of temple funds for other purposes (even subsidizing Hajj pilgrimage), political attempt to break Hindu society by perpetuating caste differences, and generally the disrespect shown to Hindu faith by governments, political parties, communists and so-called progressives and the subversion of Hindu culture. One who overlooks these problems and does not subscribe to Hindutva is hardly a hindu. Aupmanyav 05:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we also need a paragraph about increasing amount of backward restrictions by some people and trying to define the religion according to a narrow point of view that does not hold true historically or culturally...Hey, indecent carvings on temples and worshipping a phallus is sacred but god forbid their is "indecent exposure" in films. That has to be against hinduism! Sex is so evil! pfff Cultural police --Blacksun 06:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with you taking the word hindutva out of it. However, the rise of general intolerance, nationalistic leanings in Hinduism, and Ayodhya should be present. --Blacksun 06:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps the term Hindutva should be removed. It would be alright to mention the rise of Hindu nationalism but I believe words like Hindutva, RSS and BJP are direct attacks on the organisations, unless a little bit of counter-criticism is given. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

All those terms have been removed. --Blacksun 16:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't need more stuff in this article. We need less. It's already too big.--Dangerous-Boy 18:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

then chop up something else. Criticism is an important part of a FA article and that reasoning holds no merit. So dont bother. --Blacksun 03:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Odd. It's not in Buddhism and that was a FA.--Dangerous-Boy 07:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC

Odd that Buddhism is no longer a FA. --Blacksun 08:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Blacksun, You cannot dismiss a fact like this. Hindutva parties are in power or share power in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Orissa, and Karnatak. That makes nearly one third of India. In other states also their presence is significant. In the parliament and in many other states they are the prinicipal opposition. You never know when or where they may come back to power. You are not a votary of Hindutva does not mean that there are no people subscribing to it. And we do not want you to tell us what we should allow and what not. There is a difference between one or two obscene panels in far away temples and being bombarded by obscenity 24x7 on media. Aupmanyav 12:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think I ever said that there are no people subscribing to it. I have no idea what you are talking about. Anyways, I have better things to do than arguing with culture police. If you have a point pertaining to the criticism section - make it. Dont lecture about obscenities in media or whatever else. Toodles --Blacksun 08:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hinduism-related topics notice board

All new and improved notice board. It's easier to edit and request. enjoy!--Dangerous-Boy 20:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Definition of Hinduism and Against Abramitic Campaign of the "Galileans"

Hinduism in western filosophy terms can be considered a: "Panentheistic or Pantheistic and Polytheistic Monism" or "Monistic Polytheism" there's no other ways for describe Hinduism as a Whole, then there are many "ways" like Vishnavism or Shaivism that can be considered forms of Henotheism, Henotheism means preminent devotion to a particular Divinity that can be considered supreme but not excludes the existence of a plurality of Deities, however this supreme God it's part of Brahman (for me the use of Divinity/ies-Deity/ies-God/s-Goddess/es It's indifferent because there's no term to define Braman or The One, the supreme Reality or Divine Energy etc...). For example this sentence about Smarta in the article about polytheism is completely wrong:

Polytheistic views should be carefully distinguished from religions such as Smarta Hinduism, which present multiple divinities as different aspects of the same God. Rather than being polytheistic, Smarta Hinduism is a form of inclusive monotheism, where many deities are viewed as just different names for the single monotheistic God

This is about have no understanding of what is Monism or what is Brahaman... the terms Monotheism or Inclusive Monotheism are completely wrong and unsuitable and reflects an abramitic point of view. Moreover there's a misconception of what is Polytheism... "Hard Polytheism" as described here in Wikipedia and not only here never be existed in the Ellenistic-Roman World (maybe only in the Northern/Germanic World between indo-europeans, with its doctrine of the Ragnarok), even Homerus speaks of "The One" (not with the doctrinal evolution of Neo-Platonism of Late Antiquity) and all greek and hellenistic-roman philosophers had a monistic point of view, and from sources however we know about the diffuse awareness of the existance of a unique reality or divine energy comprehensive all divinities. So Hard Polytheism is an invention of Monotheism as Idolatry as described by monotheists with their lies and slanders, but this is another topic, I can't argue now.

I have noticed that lately there's a tendency to use the term Monotheism for Hinduism in Wiki and in other contexts and this is very irritant, because is a falsification of what is Hinduism and it's propagated the idea that monotheism is the more evolved form of religiosity, and Hinduism is more acceptable if "sell out" as a "Monotheistic" religion... in fact Monotheism is an involution not an evolution. (Ex. see the paradox of the angels, spiritual beings created by GOD and not divine beings, deities emanated from The One and existed from eternity). Moreover the crusade against Polytheism "sell out" as a degraded form of religiosity, that in reality never been as described as a plurality of separated divine energies but a plurality of divine beings part of a unique reality or energy.

Hinduism is NOT Monotheism is Monistic Polytheism and also the Hellenistic-Roman Religion and others of the indo-europeans.

Porphyrius, Julian The Great (and not The Apostate) and others had always defended polytheism or better the Monistic Polytheism from the attacks of the galileans (christians).

Greetings

--Antioco79 12:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It depends what tradition of Hinduism you belong. You can't label everything Hinduism. You have to define what tradition you belong to. A strict Madhva follower only worships Vishnu as the supreme God. Only Smarta Hinduism views different deities as different aspects of Brahman. A better term is theistic monism where there is only one entity Brahman, which has different aspects.

Furthermore, would you say that Christianity is polytheistic? No. Christians believe in God being one, with three different persons.

Furthermore, you say the Smarta view is wrong. I myself am a follower of the Smarta tradition. Ramakrishna followed this tradition although his favorite deity is Kali. He tried all religions and came to the same conclusion, that God is one with different aspects.

Raj2004 22:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I Haven't said that Smarta view is wrong, I have written that the definition of Wikipedia is wrong... and I haven't said that Christianity is Polytheistic... but do you have read what I have written? You say: Only Smarta Hinduism views different deities as different aspects of Brahman It is NOT true, every follower of any way of the Sanata Dharma knows that Brahman is comprehensive of a plurality of deities that are part of it or if you prefer are aspects of it, that doesn't mean that a deity don't have its own individuality also being part of The Absolute-Infinite, The One, Brahman, The Supreme Divine Energy or Essence, The All etc... name it as you prefer, in Hinduism (or better in its many manifestations) there's not only ONE GOD like the Abramitic Religions in conformity with the western mentality (unlike the GOD of Islam or Hebraism, Christian Trinity can be approached to this point of view but in concrete Christian Teology brings some paradoxes and isn't the same thing). So Hinduism as a Whole (there's no unique way or defined dogmas I know it) is a Monism and a Panentheism or a Pantheism (depends) and this is also a Polytheism, a particular form of Polytheism, not as "Hard Polytheism" (the existence of H.P is opinable historically), is a Polytheism 'cos as I said deities maintain their own inviduality and at the same time they are part or are aspects of The One, multiplicity and unity (not uniqueness) at the same time, is a slight difference isn't Monotheism tecnically and theologically considered.

So Hinduism is a Polytheistic Monism or (it's the same) a Monistic Polytheism or more specifically a Monistic and Panentheistic (or Pantheistic) Polytheism.

It seems that many westerners are allergic to the word "Polytheism" considering it only in the way of a never existed (maybe only Asatrù) "Hard Polytheism", I have demonstrated that the reality of Sanata Dharma is more complex and cant't be used a completely wrong and false term like Monotheism to describe it, there's the need of a plurality of terms and one of those is rightly Polytheism.

Sanata Dharma doesn't need a Justification or a Ennobling to the eyes of westerners with the usage of the term Monotheism, S.D. is yet noble. There's no need of a put in squares, There's no need to bring Hinduism in the chains of western abramitic concepts, to feel it more closer, because western world have repudiated its ancient culture, adopting abramitic culture, and now want to enslave other cultures chaining them at its point of view and its vision of what is "The Truth". Hinduism is the last bastion of the Indo-European culture and I don't tolerate that it can be faked by the cultural colonization of the abramitic west.

Greetings --Antioco79 10:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, I think you have misundertood what I wrote. You can say that Smarta Hinduism a form of monism, where Brahman has many aspects but is only one. A polytheist thinks that the two gods are different so your statement, I think, is incorrect. I didn't say Christianity is polytheistic. Your definition may make even Christianity polytheistic. If you ask a Saivite, they think Siva is only Brahman and no one else. http://www.sroutasaivasiddhanta.org/2-1.htm , for example. The same goes with Madhva followers: http://www.dvaita.org/docs/srv_faq.html#othergods As that site states, "Homage is sometimes paid to other deities, but these deities are never considered the equals of Vishnu, nor are they worshipped in the same spirit. Vaishnavas can be said to be monotheists, since they believe that there is only one Supreme Lord or Infinite Being—Lord Vishnu. Therefore, Vaishnavas always keep the worship of Vishnu and His attendants at the forefront of their religious practice. Some Advaitins consider all deities including Vishnu to be forms of the Saguna Brahman (the Brahman with attributes), but this belief is not universal to all Advaitins, whether or not they be Vaishnavas." Smartas follow Advaita philosophy, for the most part.

To say Smarta Hinduism is Santana Dharma is wrong. Please also see, http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2005/10-12/10-11_pub_desk.shtml

Thank you.

Raj2004 14:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Raj, are you again at it? Two hoots for your traditions, I follow the tradition of my family worshipping Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha, Kartikeya, Durga, Rama, Krishna, Hanuman, Saraswati (whom Sankara forgot to include in the Gods permissible for worship, though he added Kartikeya later). Do I have to be a Smarta or a Madhva to be a hindu? I thought we had discussed this in detail. Returned to the page after a few days and find it changed drastically without discussion. I am a polytheist and a hindu. Who are you to define hinduism for me? For that matter, who are Sankara, Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabhacharya, Chaitanya, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Raman Maharshi, Aurobindo, or the Mutt Heads to define Hinduism for me? I will study the scriptures myself and make my own decisions. What authority any one has to call me a non-hindu. Hindus would keep defining Hinduism in their own individual ways. If you mean a Brahman which includes you and me, then 'it' is not even a God, then 'it' does not need to be worshipped. I do not know which 'one God' you are talking about. Neither Smarta Hinduism, nor Madhva Hinduism, nor even your Ramakrishna Hinduism is the only Hinduism. I would keep on contesting people who would like to fetter Hinduism in any way. Aupmanyav 10:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Raj, would you kindly tell me how did the various traditions in Hinduism came about? People were not satisfied with the explanations available to them at that time and came up with their own explanations which were accepted and followed by other people. Sankara's explanation did not satisfy Madhva, Madhva's explanation did not satisfy Ramanuja and so on. This would and aught to keep on happening. Hinduism is not a dead religion. If we were to be attached to only the existant tradition, there would not have been a plethora of traditions in Hinduism. There is nothing wrong with a Hindu being a polytheist. How many to worship and whom is between me and my God/Gods. Nobody can or should interfere in this. Otherwise 'Vipra badhudha vadanti' is meaningless. Aupmanyav 11:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)