User talk:Jaybjayb

Hinduism Vs Historical Vedic Religion vs Brahamanism

Hi @Joshua Jonathan, I understand your point of view that these practices should not be confused with each other and Hinduism is nothing but a very late Hindu synthesis (although some synthesis even happened till the late modern era – "so Hinduism must be a 19th-century invention?"). Which synthesis are we talking about? Epics and Puranas? So Hindus who don't believe in Hindu synthesis and only follow the Vedas (like the Arya Samaj) should be called non-Hindus? Or have the Vedas changed? Like, did early Indo-Aryans have a different set of Vedas which people today can't follow without consulting the Upanishads? I thought Hinduism was a made-up term for all Indian practices(some of which evolved) which do not reject the Vedas. The practices which diverted from or completely rejected the Vedas formed Sramana traditions like Buddhism (but still inspired by it – I mean, even to reject the Vedas, you first need the Vedas). I am just curious about what can be taken into Hinduism and what cannot. I thought there were no set rules to be a Hindu. I didn't know you need to believe in Hindu synthesis for it. I also know that you are fed up of indian editors claiming everything started in india but I would really like to understand your thought process here as i consider you one of the better editors in Wikipedia. Looking forward to your reply. Thanks. Jaybjayb (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaybjayb: it's not clear to what you're referring to with "here"; could you explain? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will repeat, but I don't think I'll get an honest answer. I mean, it's extremely clear from your edits (not just in this article) that you don't consider historical Vedic religion or Brahmanism as part of Hinduism (which is indeed a modern made up term). So, I am asking you, when did Hinduism start? And which synthesis was the start of Hinduism? If a Hindu doesn't believe in Hindu synthesis or even in the Upanishads and only in the Vedas, would you call him a non-Hindu? Have the Vedas changed? and much more questions are above which you completely ignored because you are confused with "whats reffering to with "here" .

Differentitaing these terms as entirely seperate practices and then trying to pov push that modern hinduism developed most of its practices like reincarnation from traditions like buddhism(or even partly) is nothing but intellectual fraud and buddhist pov pushing.

I mean, I don't think you are incapable of articulating all this. I just wanted to raise my concern. You are not the only editor who would like me to shut up right now, but I only tagged you because you seem to be very interested in these topics and are not fully biased. Jaybjayb (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved above discussion here from Talk:Vedas since it is not directly related to improvement of that article and editor's get somewhat more leeway to exchange personal viewpoints in userspace. Abecedare (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]

you don't consider historical Vedic religion or Brahmanism as part of Hinduism - no, of course not; with the terms "historical vedic religion" and "Brahmanism" we're referring to historical religions, not contemporary;
when did Hinduism start? And which synthesis was the start of Hinduism? - see WP:Hindu synthesis;
If a Hindu doesn't believe in Hindu synthesis - "believing" (accepting historical facts) in the Hindus synthesis is irrelevant to being called a Hindu, though many Hindus probably don't believe in this historical view, precisely because they are Hindus;
or even in the Upanishads and only in the Vedas, would you call him a non-Hindu? - I don't know; I don't know what scholars have to say about these hypothetical people;
Have the Vedas changed? - probably not; the oral transmission is very adequate;
Which synthesis are we talking about? Epics and Puranas? - see WP:Hindu synthesis;
Hindus who don't believe in Hindu synthesis and only follow the Vedas (like the Arya Samaj) should be called non-Hindus? - obviously regards the arya Samaj to be a part of Hinduism. From Encyclopedia Britannica: "He rejected all later accretions to the Vedas as degenerate but, in his own interpretation, included much post-Vedic thought."; also quite obvious;
I thought Hinduism was a made-up term for all Indian practices(some of which evolved) which do not reject the Vedas. - some Saivite-traditions are critical about the Vedas, yet are regarded as being part of Hinduism;
The practices which diverted from or completely rejected the Vedas formed Sramana traditions like Buddhism (but still inspired by it – I mean, even to reject the Vedas, you first need the Vedas). - the sramana-traditions did not develop in direct opposition against the Brahmanical ideology, but as a collection of traditions which also interacted with the Brahmanical ideology, and with Brahmins who were attracted to it's practices and worldview. The eastern Ganges plain was a meeting-ground of the Brahmanical ideology and non-Vedic traditions; in a sense, the Hindu-synthesis started there.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua,

Thank you for the reply. I look forward to productive conversations. I agree with most of the points, if not all, but some aspects still lack clarity. For example, if the Vedas are unchanged and someone decides to follow only the Vedas, excluding later non-Vedic elements (let's forget Arya Samaj for now), would they be called a Hindu or a historical Vedic religionist?

Additionally, if we use the term "modern Hinduism" in multiple articles, why not "ancient Hinduism," especially when scholars use this term? We often note that using "ancient Hinduism" is "incorrect." How can something be labeled modern without having an ancient counterpart? Hindu synthesis is not very clear to me, as I believe Hinduism is still evolving. While I understand that many practices in Vedic religion might be very different from "modern Hinduism," the practices of every sect within modern Hinduism are also very different. In fact, the practice of each individual can be quite unique.

Extreme differences are sometimes cited, such as "belief in the afterlife instead of reincarnation." I have two points here:

Many sources suggest the concept of reincarnation was present even in the Rigveda. So, are we saying we definitely know what they used to practice, or were the early Indo-Aryans unaware of what was written in their texts?

Hindus also believe in an afterlife (Swarga/Naraka/14 lokas) followed by reincarnation, not a permanent eternal afterlife like in Abrahamic religions. So, even this point does not show significant differences. Regarding animal sacrifices, there are still Hindu communities who practice this.

The thing is, I don't personally see how it would be beneficial to assert that "ancient Hinduism" (while not even calling it that) is markedly different from "modern Hinduism" when modern Hinduism is not a uniform entity.

Regarding The sentence, "some Saivite traditions are critical of the Vedas, yet are regarded as being part of Hinduism,": I doubt they completely reject vedas. If that's the case, then by that logic, Buddhists and Jains could also be considered just another sect of Hindus. But you and I both know that's not acceptable and is highly inflammatory to assert.

Let's take another example: We can say Yahwism is significantly different from Judaism because:

Yahwism was polytheistic/monolatrist, while Judaism is monotheistic.

No Jew regards any scripture of Yahwism (even if found) as part of Judaism or assert any continuity.

So, yes, Yahwism was significantly different from Judaism. But the same cannot be asserted for Vedic religion and Hinduism. My only objection is to the assertion that Hinduism only started after the Hindu synthesis. By the line, "If a Hindu doesn't believe in Hindu synthesis," I did not mean believing in the historical facts of synthesis but what is being synthesized (e.g., Mahabharata, Ramayana, Vedanta, etc.).

But in any case, if you don't find any logic or point in my argument, then I will not bother further. Jaybjayb (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Acroterion (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Abecedare (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for personal attacks and incivility (eg, [1], [2]). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Abecedare (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan answered the call of Gondor.I like it! Jaybjayb (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well i have decided to quit Wikipedia. Its rotten to the core. Maybe ill return when the core is refreshed. If you ask me, it needs purification by fire. But the best thing is that i had a doubt about something for so long, which is now clear: Buddhist fundamentalists like. @Joshua Jonathan are much much worse than any other form of religious fundamentalists. They are a bigger threat to dharma than any Abrahmic religion. Their antagonism towards hinduism is much more personal. And if those buddhists are non-indian, its a double whammy! And one last thing, Mr.Joshua ,atleast learn what a founders effect is before propogating it. High frequency of a haplogroup without any diversity is called founders effect (like that of Tajiks). Highest frequencies with maximum diversity and oldest tmrca datings is not called founders effect in any book of genetics in the world. It usually means origin, if anything. Learn basics of genetics first. Will help your pov push better. Anyways, its like banging your head on the wall. SIGNING OFF FOR GOOD! F this shit. You wont hear from me again nor are you going to miss me. Jaybjayb (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Doug Weller talk 12:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]