Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board/Archive 2

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

Jyotirlinga map

Please add a map to the Jyotirlinga article showing the locations of the 12 holy places in India using a Map Locator. I dont know hoe to do this myself but feel it will be well appreciated.

Saivism

Wikipedia description on Saivism includes irrelevant information on vaishnavism. Although saivism accepts vedic texts, this article portrays it as vedic (brahmanical) religion. The article on saivism needs a MAJOR cleanup. You may want to refer pages published by saiva siddhantha kazhakams.

BKWSU Raja Yoga versus Classical/Patanjali Raja Yoga

Hi.

I have a problem here delineating what is classically known as Raja Yoga, e.g. Patanjali, Vivekananda etc and the spiritist practises used by the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University which involves meditating on the channelled entity or spirit they call Shiva after the Hindu God, the channelling of so-called "Shiva" through BK adherents, and the use of channelled messages spoken through their founder and current medium as the new "Gita".

Now, it is perfectly clear that what the BKs are teaching is entirely novel and the use of identical terminology is entirely confusing. But how to qualify this on the wiki? Unfortunately the Western academics demanded by other editors - whether sociological or Christian theologists - are entirely unqualified to comment on the differences.

Does anyone know if any experienced Hindu academics or yoga specialists have analysed the BKs and their practise?

Thank you. 195.82.106.244 15:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BKs maintain that they are not hindus. Why should then a hindu take the trouble of analysing what they believe, let them. Aupmanyav 10:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles which may be of interest regarding the Brahma Kumaris:

The BK organisation originates in India and claims to follow a Vedic system as I understand it. Cheers, 86.136.94.22 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a BK, tell us whether you are a hindu, or ask a BK and let us know. We would be obliged. You might as well get registered with Wikipedia. Cheers. Aupmanyav 18:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vedic metal up for deletion!

!--D-Boy 16:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP Hindu tagging

I have left some messages regarding tagging of WP Hindu at the talk page of the project. Need some response from you guys. -- Lost^(talk) 03:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#Hinduism_Barnstar

help support!--D-Boy 18:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism and the Sikh Panth

this article is having khalistani problems lately.--D-Boy 01:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraivan temple

This article needs the attention of this project. Please make the necessary modifications. —Viriditas | Talk 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#Hinduism_WikiProject_Award

barnstars are nice.--D-Boy 07:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dharma

If I'm not mistaken, Dharma (and related names) is sometimes a Hindu name and is used for males. If this is correct, it should be mentioned in Dharma and Dharma (disambiguation) IMHO and probably also Dharma and Greg (since it's a female in that case) Nil Einne 16:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One would not name a child 'dharm'. Perhaps, one may have a name that includes dharm such as the tatpurusa dharmraj, used to identify Yudistir. I am not, at least, familiar with dharm as a common name, at all. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is not a common Indian/Hindu name. It was used an American sitcom for a female character and that is as far as it goes. Gizza^Chat ^© 03:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I watched that show. her name is supposed to refer to the concept. she says so in the show. even does yoga.--D-Boy 04:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very common name among North Indians, Dharmaraj, Dharmapal, Dharma Kumar, Dharma Singh, Dharma Das, etc. Even in South India, there are umpteen Dharmarajas, Dharmalingams, Dharmadasas etc. Aupmanyav 12:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub proposal

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/December#.7B.7BSikh-bio-stub.7D.7D.2C_Category:Sikh_religious_figures please provide input.Baka man 04:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaivism or Saivism

which one are we going with here?--D-Boy 05:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Śaivism, next Shaivism, not Saivism. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 05:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sankrit word शैव (IAST: śaiva) is an adjective meaning "relating to the god Śiva (शिव)". The Sankrit word शैवः (IAST: śaivaḥ) is a noun meaning "the Hindu sect devoted to Śiva" or "a member of the Śiva sect". For the term शैव see: Apte, A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary, p. 927. The popular transliteration Shaiva is an example of how the simplified English translations are often imprecise in encoding Sanskrit sounds. The Sanskrit alphabet has three different sibilants (श ष स) but English has only one (s). In IAST the three sibilants are clearly differentiated as (ś ṣ s). In simplified transliterations that do not use IAST method, the sibilant श is often written "sh", hence Shiva for Śiva. Unfortunately this is confusing, as simplified translations often write the sibilant ष as "sh" also so you can't tell which one they mean except by context. Also note that Sanskrit has no concept of capital letters, but when translating Sanskrit for English readers the English convention of capitalizing the first letter of a proper name is usually used, except when presenting full transliterations of source texts. The ending "-ism" is an English affix used to form nouns, but it is not a Sanskrit affix. So for English readers adding "-ism" to an adjective makes a recognizable form like Śaivism. ॐ नमः शिवाय (Oṃ, salutations to Śiva). Buddhipriya 20:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Convention

Here is my proposal:

For terms (like Moksha, Puja, Shaivism)
- Use simplified transliteration in general.
- In addition if the term is defined in the article (as opposed to being only a part of a long list; for instance see "Indra, Agni, Soma, Varuna, Mitra, Savitri, Rudra, Prajapati" in "Devas and Devis" section) we should spell it out in IAST (or IPA) to give the user a pronunciation guide; and also in devanagiri.
- This additional information should be added at the point where the term is defined, and not necessarily where it is first used, for instance "Brahman" should be spelled out in IAST etc in the "Brahman" section, even though the term is first used in the introduction.
For shlokas/mahavakyas etc:
- Simply use IAST since it may too redundant to provide the simplified transliteration too. A casual reader will anyway be interested only in the Englist translation, while an interested reader will care to know the pronunciation which only IAST/IPA provides.

Your comments? (I realize that ideally these conventions should be settled on on a project-wide basis, but it may be easier to reach a working consensus here). Abecedare 05:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support all of your proposals. Gizza^Chat ^© 06:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the simplified transliterations. Can we have a box at the top of the article, like the one that says "this page contains indic text" and links to the article with instructions on how to enable it etc., that would say "this page uses IAST transliterations", that links to an article with the pronunciation guide / compatability instructions? Simply providing a transliteration for sacred sanskrit mantras is a boon to all readers, but making that transliteration simple, and dumbed down is not necessary, in my opinion. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 07:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saiva, you'll note that I do propose using IAST for shlokas/mantras etc. Are you suggesting that we use IAST for each occurrence of any word on Indian origin ? Abecedare 08:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IAST means we would always have write Krishna as kṛṣṇa, Ganesha as gaṇeśa, Rishi as ṛṣi Parvati as Pārvatī and Pingala as piṅgala. I have five reasons why I think Simplified is better to use:

It takes me a long time to search for these symbols in the symbols box when on the editing page.
It will take a long time for people who do not understand IAST to learn it. It is like learning a quarter of a new script. I don't think non-experts should be required to learn IAST when reading the Hinduism article. The only requirement should be an interest in Hinduism.
It looks ugly. The only ugly letter in simplified IMO is "chh," but it is rare.
The names of the articles on Wikipedia are not spelt in IAST but in simplified. It is a hassle to do this [[Shiva|Śiva]] instead of this [[Shiva]]. If you want articles names to also use IAST, bear in mind that nobody will type in the search box śaktī when it is easier to type Shakti.
Those with old computers or browsers will have squares appearing where any letter with diacritics is meant to appear ane we can't tell them to update because most of the people seeing this article don't edit on Wikipedia.

Thank you. Gizza^Chat ^© 08:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that that we should italicize English characters for our terms and at the same time use Sankrut fonts for important terms, Mahavakyas etc along with them. When you go on tour and see any terms or Mahavakyas in Sanskrut fonts, you can read them and know that it is "Tatvamasi". The pleasure of being able to read in one's own language particularly if the place is secluded or of heritage is beyond description. Let Wikipedia be instrumental in learning a cent of our mother language. I will stress that there is a world beyond West and you all as well our new generation are going to visit India and Vedic institutes were you are likely to come across Mahavakyas in only Sanskrut font. What's the point of exclusion of Sanskrut fonts? Pl. don't make the Wikipedia only for Westerns. India has plenty of computers and internet users. swadhyayee 02:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saiva, I think that simplified transliteration (using English fonts in italicized manner) is must to make one understand that the word is from original language at the same time make the reader understand the pronunciation. swadhyayee 02:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Abecedare's & DaGizza's suggestions are good and acceptable. swadhyayee 02:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I feel that IAST and Devanāgarī versions of text should be included whenever possible, while also including informal transliterations but noting that they are informal. The goal is not to make those who do not know IAST or Devanāgarī feel bad, but rather to gently introduce them to the ideas. Users who do not know IAST or Sanskrit should feel free to enter words using simplified translations if IAST is difficult for them, and those of us who are comfortable with IAST and have Devanāgarī typing skills can add IAST and Devanāgarī versions while noting that the simplified transliterations are also used. Because the Sanskrit alphabet has so many more sound variations than English it is essential to preserve these sounds somehow as they greatly affect meaning. Why is this important? For example, if I write the word "raja" in simplified transliteration, do I mean "king" (राज, rāja) or do I mean "dust" (रज, raja)? This is a Sanskrit pun, by the way, as the only difference between a king and dust is the long vowel "ā" rather than the short vowel "a". In Sanskrit the duration of holding the sound of the vowel is encoded in the writing system. But the English (ISO Latin-1 character set) has no equivalent function for vowel length in the writing system, and vowel length (duration of sounding, or emphasis) often changes meaning. Teaching Sanskrit with no vowel distinctions is like teaching Chinese with no tones. So for those who want to learn real Sanskrit terms it is essential to provide IAST or Devanāgarī versions in addition to the popular transliteratons that make use of only the fewer characters in the Latin-1 character set. Another detail is that some people here seem to use the terms "Sanskrit" and "Devanāgarī" as meaning the same thing, which they are not. The Sanskrit language was developed as primarily an oral language and many different writing systems can be used to encode the grammar and vocabulary which define Sanskrit. Devanāgarī is a writing system, not a language. The Devanāgarī writing system is one of several writing systems that are used to write down Sanskrit language for various cultural audiences, others being IAST, Bonji, Tamil, etc. Many of the Buddhist Sanskrit materials in Japan are written in Bonji, for example, which is usually unintelligible to those who only know Devanāgarī. The Devanāgarī writing system also is used to write other modern Indic languages in addition to Sanskrit so it is very familiar to people in India because you see it everywhere on public signs, newspapers, etc. IAST is the current academic standard for Latinized transliteration of the Sanskrit sound system. Devanāgarī and IAST are the writing systems in which most Sanskrit academic materials are published, and for Wiki to have any credibility at all in academic circles it is important to add these versions when we can, while not going overboard and becoming arrogant to those who do not know them. So in a nutshell I would say "Don't worry, be happy" and just add IAST and Devanāgarī little by little while respecting and preserving the informal transliterations that others may prefer. Buddhipriya 19:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saiva, Why do you spell this way?

Saiva, why do you spell "Brahmacharya" as brahmacarya. You are omiting "h". My earnest suggestion to you would be why should we fall in line with westerns to spell our words wrongly? Is there no difference in pronounciation of "Ch" and "C"? swadhyayee 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that Brahmacarya was spelled with च and not छ. As I understand it, and I may be wrong, च is transliterated as, c and छ is transliterated as ch. If it is actually spelled with छ, then I am wrong altogether! ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 03:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is writing in IAST instead of simplified transliteration. It is like his name - Saiva instead of Shaiva. I recommend using the simplified version because not only some of the editors here not familiar with it but most of the non-editors (people who only read Wiki articles) wouldn't be familiar with not and it will confuse them. words like rishi become rsi (with dots below "r" and "s"). Most people reading the Wiki-article won't know IAST and in old computers letters with diacritics appear as squares. Gizza^Chat ^© 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a useful resource with comparative tables: Romanization of Sanskrit. Abecedare 04:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, this reminds me of the discussion above of how were were going to do the transliteration of terminology, etc. I was thinking that Swadhayeeji was simply pointing out that I was spelling brahmacarya incorrectly, as in if the choices were ch and chh, I was choosing ch while I should have been choosing chh. By the way, did we ever conclude on what transliteration scheme we were going to use consistently throughout the article? ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 04:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Saiva that you did not know this. I thought you are trying to promote wrong western spellings. "Acharya" and "Brahmacharyashram" are spelled this way. Where as "Chhangogyaupnishad" is spelled this way. I saw what Abecedare shown, I don't think they show correct characters used here in India or may be what British use. I do not have Sanskrut or Hindi characters to mention here. How do I pick up Sanskrut or Hindi characters? swadhyayee 04:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhyayeeji, out of ch and chh I chose ch, but because I use the IAST system, which I feel is more accurate, and I thought what we had been using in the Hinduism article, I write it as c. If you would like to enable support for Indic fonts, I was shown this link: WP:INDIC. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 04:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

did u you read the dharmic naming coventions?--D-Boy 08:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no aspiration ('ha') in the 1st and 3rd letters of 'ka-varga', 'ca-varga', the next 'varga', 'ta-varga', and 'pa-varga'. The Geneva convention quite properly adopted to transliterate the letters in these groups as ka kha ga gha and so forth. As for the sibilants, they correctly adopted 'sa' for the first sibilant, a dot above the letter 's' for the second sibilant, and a dot under the leter 's' for the third sibilant. Now, wherever diacritical marks are not used, 'sha' is used for the 2nd sibilant so that it is not mistaken for the 1st sibilant 'sa'. Shaiva Sujit would be preferable for clarity. Sujit has used a diacritical mark in his name, though it is not the standard diacritical mark, but it serves the purpose. 'brahmacarya' is standard transliteration. 'brahmacharya' and 'siva'are found in common usageKanchanamala 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Sanskrit word ब्रह्मचर्य is transliterated as "brahmacarya" in IAST. I prefer the IAST system because it is the academic standard. Because there are several different methods for transliteration, it is important that we all learn from one another and respect each others methods. Clarification of which method is being used sometimes is helpful to build dialog. It can also be helpful to add the Devanāgarī as an additional method to clarify the word, while respecting the fact that not all can read Devanāgarī. Always we must try to meet people where they are in a friendly manner. By showing that there are multiple ways of writing a word we can help people bridge the chasm of human languages. It is a valid point that some older computers do not support Unicode, so requiring IAST and Devanāgarī as the only methods would be non-inclusive. But fortunately all computers being sold today support Unicode, so previous problems with cross-system display of Unicode text are quickly being relieved See: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/IAST Buddhipriya 21:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:India/Ayyavazhi

Ayyavazhi in my opinion is a Hindu sect founded in Tamil Nadu. The followers disagree. Please see this discussion and the Ayyavazhi and offer your own opinion (not here but on the Talk:India/Ayyavazhi page). Thank you. Gizza^Chat ^© 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know it exsisted until I read it on wikipedia but I agree that it's a Hindu sect.--D-Boy 04:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Ayyavazhi are a group of Hindus with a tradition, old or new, they should be included in the article on Hinduism.Kanchanamala 19:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way of life for hindus as ordained by Upanishads

Hi All, I created an article Ideal way of life for Hindus as prescribed in Taittiriya Upanishad verses 9 and 11 of its first chapter and those include famous "MaatrDevo Bhava " which is so well known commandment for most of hindus. But somebody immediately placed Deletion Tag and marked the article for deletion citing it doesnot confirm to NPOV policy. But I fail to see what POV is seen in that article. I guess it is naming of article that evoked POV, but I'm not sure, I request editors to visit the article and let me know what makes it biased. It has some typo's and incorrect grammer since it is freshly written. I 'll improve it if its deletion tag removed. Thanks

Lokesh 2000 12:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed prod.Baka man 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the article isn't written very well. The name of the article is awkward. Is there a better name you can use? Maybe it is better to move it into a section of the Taittiriya Upanishad page. The article needs to be set out as mentioned in WP:MoS. Some headings would be nice. Gizza^Chat ^© 21:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is a fresh article and Lokesh 2000 plans to improve the writing (and hopefully add references) in future edits. However I do think that as it stands the title choice is arguable, and in my opinion either (a) the content should be moved to a Taittiriya Upanishad or, (b) at least the title changed to reflect that this is simply a way of life prescribed to Hindus according to 3 verses of the text.

(Should we move/copy this discussion to the Talk page of the article ? ) Abecedare 21:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a merger of Ideal way of life for Hindus with Taittiriya Upanishad and copied the above discussion to the article's talk page. Further discussion on the topic can be placed there. Abecedare 22:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal way of life for hindus would not be complete with just Taittiriya Upanishad. Many more things would be added later. Why the merger? Aupmanyav 10:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Abecedarian wants to merge the content of the articles but I don't think the titles. If you see the Ideal way of life for Hindus page, the article only talks about Taittiriya Upanishad. So I think the information should be merged but not the names. Gizza^Chat ^© 10:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For now I have merged the contents of the articles under Taittiriya Upanishad with Lokesh's support. So the previous content of the article "Ideal way of life for a Hindu" (which discussed only the Taittiriya Upanishad POV) is a section in the main article and as per Wikipedia's policy for merged pages Ideal way of life for Hindus redirects to Taittiriya Upanishad. (By the way, all your help will be appreciated in cleaning up this article and making it encyclopedic)

Of course, if and when we create an article discussing the various ideal ways of life for a Hindu, as Aupmanyav suggest, we can undo the redirection. Abecedare 10:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob., I am game. Aupmanyav 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tantrika article

I am requesting help for the Tantra article. It is clearly marked as a Hindu article, yet it still has a section on Buddhist Tantra which already has its own article Vajrayana, and "neo-tantra" which also has its own article neotantra or somesuch. Tantra should be about tantrika parampara, however many of the editors working on that article are not familiar with the nature of Tantra. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 09:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced through the article and didn't recognize the section you are referring to. Can you point out the specific Buddhist section ? (By the way, I know next to nothing on the topic; so perhaps can serve as a substitute for a "typical reader" towards whom the article should be aimed :-) ) Abecedare 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Tantrika_Parampara is a redirect to Tantra. The Buddhist and Neotantra have their own articles so I believe Hindu Shiva-Shakti Tantra should have its own article. That way, the main Tantra page can talk about all forms of Tantra. Gizza^Chat ^© 10:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion

Gauranga, Brahmaji obtained Veda (knowledge) after tapas and because of that the 'dharma'. He cannot be termed as a hindu, we are. Religions did not come untill Akhenaten (I say this and only this is true). I do not believe in existence of soul, but in my view, those who do not know have many kinds of misunderstandings, religion is one of them.

Swadhyayee, it is for me to evaluate what I believe and for others to evaluate what they believe. I would not do the comparision for them. It may happen that my deduction of truth is different from their's. I believe in 'Tatwamasi' and I believe in 'chaitanya' in everything, even in a stone. If anyone differs, they are welcome to it. Of course, a christian or a muslim also is Brahman, Ekameva-Adviteeyam, only I think they have not understood a particular point, just as many hindus also might not have understood it.

Bakaji, Sri Krishna talks about 'dharma' and never about hinduism, that dharma which is for everyone and for all times. It is His 'Maya' and our ignorance which makes us a hindu, a christian, or a muslim. And thanks for moving the discussion to the notice board. Aupmanyav 05:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyavji, You say you believe in "Chaitanya" but not soul. You only know what is the difference between "Chaitanya" and soul. Same thing, different names. "Chaitanya" within a body (human), I believe, we call it "soul". On Hinduism talk page, you found difference in "Dharma" and religion. Here you find difference in "Dharma" and "Hinduism". I think, that the article "Hinduism" include "Hindu Dharma". If we have to make an article on "Dharma" (your terminology), can we name the article as "Dharma" on Wikipedia pages? Isn't "Hinduism" an appropriate name? In my opinion, here we are not to debate on what is the ultimate truth. We are here to give broad outlook of Hinduism. May be un-intentionally but I feel you are trying to project yourself superior over others. What you say, even I know. But I think, this type of debate is not applicable for creation of this article.

On one side, you say you believe in "Tatwamasi" and "Ekmev Advaityam" at the same time you say you are staunch Hindu and find Islam and Christainity wrong. The point is we are not what we claim. If you feel you are "Chaitanya" and not "Aupmanvyav", the debate based on feeling of superiority can not exist. If I take what you say, I feel I will suffer of indigestion.

Aupmanyavji, can you tell me what is the meaning of "Pandit-Putra"?

Can we stay on ground and talk for article for commons than Mandan Mishra, Shankaracharya or Socratese? swadhyayee 17:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, as I have already mentioned, your truth may be different from mine, and Hinduism welcomes it, it is a search for truth. If I cut off my finger, it will still have chaitanya. Each of atoms contained in it will be just as activce. Simialrly each particle of an atom of a stone is constantly in a whirl, giving out energy/particles, taking in energy/particles, changing its properties, from a Baryon to a Boson to a Neutron, etc. That is its inherent property. And is atom a solid ball? No. The recent scientific research shows that it is none other than force, like Aurora Borialis, changes every nanosecond, so that we see a magnificient display, which is nothing more than that. That is what I understand as 'chaitanya'. Unless we understand a phenomenon, how would we be able to describe it in words. So a discussion is necessary. I have never wanted to change the name of the article, though it is well-known that 'dharma' and 'religion' do not mean the same. Who is not 'chaitanya', are you not? Why do you get this feeling in a debate that I feel superior to any body else? I am a hindu and I am just explaining my view which is not wrong according to scriptures. Yes, I do have problems with Christianity and Islam due to their exclusivity. My Hinduism does not believe in exclusivity. I can certainly co-exist with a christian or a muslim, even if he is a terrorist, because he also in reality is Brahman. IMHO, we are on good ground, by birth I am a 'pandit-putra', by profession, I was a shudra (service). What constitutes me will not always be 'Aupmanyav' but it will always be 'chaitanya'. Thanks. Aupmanyav 06:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.N. Oak

Perhaps you guys are more knowledgeable about him. Right now the article is quite unencyclopedic, and the criticism section contains a lot of fluff, and very little documentation on his actual theories.Baka man 19:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, Wikipedia, you have to have an article on him too! Compulsions of policy.:-( Aupmanyav 17:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purana list

Hi. I was looking over the pages for specific mahapuranas, and I notice they have a box with links to the article on puranas and to each of the mahapuranas. I'm not a Hindu, so I'm just going from reading, but I understand there is some dispute as to whether the Siva purana is a mahapurana. (If I remember correctly, it would replace the Vayu purana.) Can the Siva purana be added to the box with the purana names, or would that be inappropriate? Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ansat (talk • contribs).

Vegetarianism

Was 'compassion for all beings' and 'vegetarianism' not there in Hinduism before the advent of Buddhism and Jainism? Aupmanyav 10:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a very difficult question to answer. We'll probably have to do some research to find out. I think Anti-Hindu scholars may say that to try to show Hinduism as a barbaric religion. There definitely was "compassion for some beings." Vedic life in general is not terribly well known. Obviously cermonies like Ashwamedha existed and some people may argue the first transformation in Hinduism occurred when Buddhism and Jainism arose. GizzaChat © 10:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you testing our knowledge Aupmanyav? A person of your knowledge ask us this? I am Vaishnav. Have nothing to do with Jainism and Buddha. I believe, all Vaishyas and Brahmins (except coastal area Brahmins or may be Vaishya too) are veg. from long. I don't think any day in past we were non-veg. swadhyayee 11:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Gautam Rushi, invented cultivation and I presume since his time, vegetarianism must have taken roots. swadhyayee 11:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~What rubbish~~I do not agree to: "Gautam Rushi inventing cultivation"! Vedic age had fire-sacrifices and at least on larger yajnas, many animals would be sacrificed. This was the only meat allowed, and expected to be eaten by the Indo-Aryans. The slaughter of such animals was not consider a sin, because the Vedic religion was by its very nature ritualistic; it means that if things were done with proper rituals, they were automatically exempted from any sin that might be incurred otherwise (this later got into the philosophy of Mimamsa). This view is upheld in Manusmriti, Valmiki's Ramayana, Bhishma's talk to Yuddhishthira in Mahabharata and several other law books. Hunted animals was an exception, because sage Agastya had once "offered" all forest animals to Rudra, so eating hunted flesh was always allowed. However, commerical butchering of animals has always been condemned, calling it sinful. All the Vaishnava stuff evolved much after Buddhism and Jainism and certainly has been influenced by it. So saying "I am a Vaishnav, having nothing to do with Buddhism/Jainism" is misleading. Cygnus_hansa 15:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MIND YOUR LANGUAGE MAGICALSAUMY, This is my knowledge and I have stated "I think". You have no business to term it as rubbish. What's your authority to say that Gautam Rushi did not invent cultivation? If, there was some ritual for non-veg. people to offer animals in Yajna and eat the sacrificed animals later, the same can not be construed that the only food was meat then. For your information, Smritis are nothing but constitution like we have Indian Penal Code. Today, being non-veg. is no crime does not mean morally it is correct to eat non-veg. (from Hindu perspective). Even today, if a person is dying for want of veg. food, he is allowed to take non-veg. as much one can put on a "Tulsi-Patra". You may differ with me but you have got to be enough polite. swadhyayee 15:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhyayee, in case you do not understand English, which I have come to suspect now, let me tell you that nowhere have I tried to contrue that flesh was the only food in Vedic ages. It seems you have misinterpreted my third sentence. It is only that I get really really pi**ed off with pseudoscience. Somewhere later down I have also put up a question on slyly selected quotations from Manusmriti. Cygnus_hansa 21:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MAGICALSAUMY, I saw your comments late as you have squeezed in. Don't bother about my English, in India we follow Britishers' English which is different from Yankees. Have I understood wrong that you tried to ridicule my modest contention that Gautam Rushi was behind invention of cultivation by using "what rubbish"? You have not been able to negative my contention or cite any other refs. against me. Just learn the mannerism. See the meaning of "rubbish" and understand the meaning of "What rubbish" if you claim to know English better than me. My objections are against your ridiculing Gautam Rushi having invented cultivation and not against your beliefs of Hindus being veg. or non-veg. I have never said that invention of cultivation meant there was no consumption of meat. I have very clearly stated that Vaishyas and Brahmins except from coastal regions were veg. from long and not non-veg. anytime. You have not addressed your comments to question raised by Aupmanyav, you have addressed your harsh comments against my contention of Gautam Rushi having invented cultivation. Pl. re-read your own comments and if you know English as you claim and feel wrong of using "What rubbish" without citing any refs. pl. strike out your "What rubbish" words. swadhyayee 02:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that just saying "what rubbish" is that offensive! I was against your mental conjecture that some Rishi invented/discovered cultivation, whereas it is very much well known that cultivation spread almost simultaneously among several Cro-Magnon Man communities across the world, almost at the same time prob. around 6000 BC. This led to a change from hunter-gatherers to settled people, later making towns and cities. And that too prob. the first cultivation was in Mesopotamia, not in the Aryan expanse. Also, about your comments about Brahmins (and Vaishyas), they are to be negated because Manusmriti explicitly says that if during Shraddha ceremony dinner, any Brahmin is invited, meat MUST be served before him (because it was considered a tasty food!), and one can manage with only vegetarian food only if Brahmins are not there. Because meat was a special food. In almost all world communities, guests are and have always been treated with special food (read meat). It is only after the influence of Jainism and peaceful Vaishnaite faith that (most) Brahmins became vegetarians. I will give supporting quotes soon, its just that I dont want to ruin my vacations just by gluing to the comp. Also, I very much know that the Indians, of whom I am a part, follow British English (although spoken form has a heavy native sing-song accent), since I was also schooled in an Indian school. My point about you had never ignored this fact.Cygnus_hansa 16:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your view my English is not upto the mark and in my view your intelligence is not upto the mark to understand "what rubbish" is offensive, to understand that inventions of a kind can take place at two places simultaneously, to understand what the discussion is; And to understand that there is bound to be peculiar accent when one be it Indian or other speak any foregn language. What is the need of bringing accent part? Even the accent of a South Indian and North Indian would differ. There is nothing great if a person can speak fluent English after staying few years in Western countries as I am sure scavangers there too would be able to speak fluent English without any education. The discussion here is whether veg. part of Hinduism is effect of Jainism and Buddhism or not? Whether Brahmins were veg. or non-veg. is not for discussion. I have quoted Manusmruti which by all means is an authentic source to support the contentions of present discussion. If, you are referring to Shlok 123 of Ch. 3 of Manusmruti for serving meat to Brahmin during Shraddha, the meat referred there is from sacrifice of animals in Yajna and earlier Shlork 122 refer to Agnihotri Bramin not all Brahmins. Your strong opinions about cultivation are based on some history book of 21st century. Your answers become disgusting and you have still not shown decency of understanding "What rubbush" is offensive and striking out the same. swadhyayee 19:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accent was just an offhand topic I had casually brought in. Cygnus_hansa 20:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "I am sure scavangers there too" !- is it your casteism on display ? And by the way, "history book of 21st century" is not a slur - it is what is called a reliable source on wikipedia. 74.136.209.251 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"it is your castism on display" again a personal attack. Is that you Magicalsuamy? Pointing out a ground reality is alleged to be display of casteism. This is just to brush the ego of Indians going abroad and infatuate feeling of superiority over people of India. I don't mean to say that 21st history book is slur, I am just saying it may not have history of Gautam Rushi's work. swadhyayee 04:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shloka 48 to 56 of Chapter 5 of Manusmruti condemn eating flesh, state flesh can not be eaten and appreciate who renounce flesh. Eating of flesh is discouraged by threatenings that the animal a human being eat, the same animal will eat the same human being in "Parlok" (hell or heaven) and he will be re-born many times as the same animal. In earlier shlokas what should be eaten and what not, which animals can be eaten and which not, which milk and food can be taken and which not is described. While concluding it is advocated that flesh should not be eaten. (See Shloka 48).

Aupmanyav, this is off-topic discussion started from your question. swadhyayee 16:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavad Gita gives direct reference to nonviolence and compassion [1] - and according to tradition accounts was spoken before the arrival of Buddhism into India. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 18:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The gita is at least 2000 years before Buddhism. Baka man 18:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Swadhyayee, I am not testing anybody's knowledge. I am just contesting the popular view that Buddhism and Jainism did something which was unique which was not there in hinduism. Buddhism and Jainism carry the influence of Hinduism and not vice-versa. Buddha and Mahavira, both were born in this culture. That they gave more emphasis to certain aspects in their belief is not disputed. After all, we are the people who said Isavasyam Idam Jagat (the entire world is permeated by God), Ekatma Sarva Bhutantaratma (One Spriit is the inner spirit of all things), Ma himsyat sarva bhutani (Do not subject anything to cruelty). There are scores of references like this in Srimad BhagawadGeeta which I have not quoted. Aupmanyav 18:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that 'sarva bhutani' would include humans, animals, vegetation, and even inanimate objects. Aupmanyav 19:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word literally means a 'being', and comes from the root bhav. Whether it is limited to sentient beings I am not sure. deeptrivia (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the Mahabharata (115:40) says:

“

The purchaser of flesh performs himsa (violence) by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does himsa by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing. He who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts of the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells, or cooks flesh and eats it-all of these are to be considered meat-eaters.

”

deeptrivia (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“

"Shloka 51 of Chapter 5 of Manusmruti describe 8 people who are killers. 1) Advisers in matter of flesh 2) Cutter 3) Killer 4) Seller 5) Buyer 6) Cook 7) Server and 8) Eater.

”

swadhyayee 02:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deeptrivia, a stone also 'bhavati', without 'bhava' there would not be any stone. It seems to be created at a certain time by a certain process (all this being maya, illusion) and dissolves at another time by another process, but is in reality Brahman. Is anything ever created, except by 'Maya'? For Brahmavadins is there anything other than Brahman (apologies to Dvaitas, your views are as correct as mine). Did not Nri-Simha avatara appear out of a stone pillar? Aupmanyav 04:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quotes swadhyayee, you are starting to understand the technical side of wikipedia. — Arjun 04:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right, Aupmanyav. In fact, it could be anything with physical existence. That's where the Hindi word for physics (bhautiki) comes from. For the many other connotations, see here. I meant, whether Ma himsyat sarva bhutani was originally intended to cover all beings including the non-sentient beings, I am not sure, but it is highly likely. Also, Baudhayana (~800 BCE) defines a Mleccha as someone "who eats meat or indulges in self-contradictory statements or is devoid of righteousness and purity of conduct." deeptrivia (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnus_Hansa, you prove my point. In all probablity, Aryans were non-vegetarians. That they turned to vegetarianism must be the effect of an adjustment with a parallel philosophy, which I think was provided by the other native Indian beliefs. Hinduism came after the confluence of these two streams and many other smaller ones. Aupmanyav 06:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember that Buddha never claimed to teach anything new. Many of his teachings end with 'esa dhammo sanatano' (this is the eternal dharma). It is held by many scholars that Buddha carried forward a long tradition, which had its roots in Samkhya (e.g., read this.) It is reasonable that his teachings significantly reflected the value system in which he was brought up ("Hinduism"), and formally trained (samkhya). deeptrivia (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With providing probabilities what are you trying to prove Aupmanyav? Manusmruti does state that animals offered to Yajna were for human consumption. I perceive that it was indirect way of controlling people consuming meat. Just imagine, how difficult was to organise an "Yajna". Without sacrificing in "Yajna" one was not supposed to consume meat as per Magicalsaumy's agreed contention. One of the Magicalsaumy's quote is "Manusmruti". Magicalsaumy has failed to note Shloka 48 to 56 of Chapter 5 of Manusmruti. What are you trying to say by two streams effect Aupmanyav? Are you trying to say that veg. is due to effect of Jainism or Buddha philosophy? If, it was so, there must reflect other advocacies of these two philosophies which is not. Hope you will agree that "Manu" era was much earlier than Buddha or Mahavir. I provide herewith summary of what Manu said in Chapter 5 of Manusmruti.

The suggestions are to "Dwij". "Dwij" as I understand means those who are born twice. The second birth is at the time of "Yajnopavit" viz. thread ceremony.

"Brahmins" should eat "Sanskarsuddha" meat upon one's discretion only once. It should be eaten in "Shraddha" and in "Madhupark" ceremony observing rituals and it should be only eaten when life is in danger due to some sickness. Shlok 27.

Prajapati has created all material as eatables to protect life so when life can not be saved unless consuming meat, meat should be consumed. Shlok 28.

Consuming meat for "Yajna" is "Daivvidhi" (divine) anything contrary (consuming meat only for nutrition) is Rakshasvidhi" (evil). Shlok 31.

"Dwij" knowledgable of rituals should not consume meat without danger to life as one who can not control desire to consume meat will be eaten by the same animals whom one ate. Shlok 33.

Hunter, killing an animal for livelyhood is not committing as much sin, as meat eater without cause is committing. Shlok 34.

Animals of "Ghee" or "Flour" should be made and used in traditional "Yajnas" which are not having foundation in Vedic doctrines but animals should not be killed for these "Yajnas". Shlok 37.

Those who belong to "Brahmacharyashram", "Gruhasthashram" or "Vanprashtashram" and have controlled (conquered) their sensual desires should not get involved in Hinsa not supported by Vedas even during life losing time. Shlok 43.

One who kills animals incapable to kill (Ahinsak Prani) are dead during their life time and never get happiness. Shlok 45.

A human who does not desire to control movement of animals, kill or cause pain to animals is desirous of eveyone's well being and so he gets enormous happiness. Shlok 46.

One who does not get involved in any Hinsa succeeds without much efforts in any meditation (Dhyan), any (Karma) deed or desires ("Dharanas"). Shloka 47.

Meat can not be recovered without killing animals and killing animals don't lead to heaven but is a cause of getting hell so meat should be renounced. Shlok 48.

One who does not abrogate rituals and does not eat meat as a ghost (Pishach) becomes dear to all and remains free from (grief causing) ailments. Shlok 50.

Shlok 51 already mentioned.

One who desires increasing one's flesh by consuming meat is greatest sinister of all sinisters. Shlok 52.

One who undertakes 100 yearly "Ashvamedh Yajnas" (every year 1 for 100 years) and one who renounce meat has equatable "Punya" (Punya is opposite of sin - Virtue?). Shlok 53.

"Vidwans" viz. sages/knowledgables say that the animals whom I eat here will eat me in in Parlok (heaven or) hell. Shlok 55,

Though there is no stigma in consuming meat, liquor or having sex as they are the activities of animals but renouncing them is earning good outcome (Mahafal or Mahaphal). Shlok 56.

Garlic, carrot, onion, mushroom and vegetables (like Tandalja Bhaji) produced with help of un-holy manure are not eatables for "Dwij". Shlok 5.

Gum (reddish liquid) oozing from tree or recovered from cutting of tree, Vadgunda and Bali made out of cow's milk should be avoided. Shlok 6. [Bali is produced from milk of lactating cow (when the calf is dependent upon cow for feed).].

Milk of cow whose calf is not more than 10 nights, camel, mare, sheep and menstruating cow desirous of intercourse and cow whose calf has died should be avoided. Shlok 8.

There are plenty of restrictions regarding eating meat of certain animals. Fish eating is totally condemned (Shlok 15) however exception of certain kind of fish is provided.

This all which one may consider orthodox is provided here to stress that Manu era is long past comparing Jainism and Buddhism. Jainism and Buddhism have influence of Hinduism and not Hinduism is influenced by Jainism and Buddhism. This applies to even Vegetarianism. Both Mahavir and King Siddharth - Gautam Buddha are born much later during time of Hinduism. King Siddharth had seen a funeral procession which disturbed him and he renounced his kingdom. Both Mahavir and King Siddharth undergone meditation, reference of which (meditation) could be sought in Vedas, Upnishads and Geeta. swadhyayee 10:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody want to amend This section accordingly to the agreements made above? Gizza^Chat ^© 11:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section is not at all necessary as it were Buddhism and Jainism which were influenced by Hinduism and not the other way round. Aupmanyav 14:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhyayee, I do not think you are reading my posts correctly. My statement is very clear. Aryans basically were non-vegetarians. By two streams I mean (1) the Aryans worshipping Indra, Surya, Agni, etc. (2) Other native believers who were worshipping Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti. I was the first to contest on these pages that Buddhism and Jainism has had very little effect on Hinduism, and that the case is just opposite. Buddhism, Jainism, and later Sikhism have clear influence of Hinduism. You are basically repeating what was stated by me in a way which seems that I am contesting for the opposite. As for meat-eating among Aryans, I would quote only from the original, i.e., Vedas, and not even Upanishads. It is true, by the time of Manusmriti and Srimad BhagawadGeeta, Aryan beliefs had changed. But, perhaps it would require one day of searching. Aupmanyav 14:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aupmanyav, This discussion was started under IAF's Sikhism proposal. The question was not related to Sikhism discussion. All of a sudden you put this negative question without any context. I seperated this question.

Another thing, pl. don't take all my comments are directed at you.

In reply to your question, DaGizza made ref. to some views about effect of Buddhism and Jainism upon Hinduism.

Magicalsaumy rubbished my doubtful statement that Gautam Rushi invented cultivation. He did not put any counter theory that Gautam Rushi did not invent cultivation. Within me, I am pretty sure that Gautam Rushi invented cultivation and cultivation can not spread unless people turn to veg. food.

I am not aware about Mahaprabhuji's era along with time of Mahavir and Buddha. Yet, Mahavir was 24th Tirthankar so Jainism must be much older. So I have not replied his claim about Vishnavism.

My comments aim to answer all and provide some information I have.

It's better that we concentrate on DaGizza's proposal of super review para wise. We could discuss your question when we come to veg. part in article. You should wait till then to raise your question. DaGizza is proposing for super review and people keep on editing the way they want. If, a new comer does so, we can understand but editors aware of DaGizza's proposal also do so.

I feel the intentions behind your questions are not clear so questions without context raise doubts about your intentions. I have seen you trying to prove your superiority over others.

Your these comments also not make clear what you want to say.

::Cygnus_Hansa, you prove my point. In all probablity, Aryans were non-vegetarians. That they turned to vegetarianism must be the effect of an adjustment with a parallel philosophy, which I think was provided by the other native Indian beliefs. Hinduism came after the confluence of these two streams and many other smaller ones. Aupmanyav 06:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

We are completing the article. Let's channelise our energies in one direction to make final changes. Again, my request to you would be to remain on ground and talk related to article. What you talk about higher philosophy is not relevant here. I know most of the things you say but I don't think we should confuse others with higher philosophy unless it is needed for some proposals. You placed your question on talk page of Hinduism where it has been brought to our attention that only matters related to article should be discussed.

With due apology, Pandit-Putra is used sarcastically for a worthless child of a Pandit. A knowledgable son of a Pandit is known as Pandit. It's an abusive term. So pl. don't use this term. swadhyayee 15:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivation was "invented" during the Neolithic Revolution, and was the driving force that led to all Bronze age civilizations. Civilized life was made necessary because of agriculture required cooperation on a bigger scale than hunting. It required granaries for storing food for off season, etc. Indus Valley Civilization had an extensive irrigation network. Somehow, Gautam rishi doesn't fit into these theories. deeptrivia (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A small, but significant, addition : "Civilized life became both possible and necessary..."

Also, civilized here is used not as an antonym for barbaric, but as the opposite of nomadic. (I know all this is far off topic and getting further. :-) ) Abecedare 17:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let us forget these little tiffs. I had to bring the line to the attention of Cygnus_Hansa and other proponents of 'Vedic only' theory. IMHO, it is disrespectful to Tamils and many others who do not agree that they have Aryan descent but are part of Hinduism. Aupmanyav 18:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the chapter just before this one, whence the quotes are taken, there is an entire explicit chapter which says that sacrificed meat of certain animals is allowed. Why were the verses from that chapter cleverly avoided here?Cygnus_hansa 21:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magicalsaumy, the discussion here is whether Jainism and Buddhism influenced Hinduism in respect of veg. habit of Hindus? It's not whether Hindus consumed meat or not? I have already said in beginning, "Manusmruti does state that animals offered to Yajna were for human consumption." The concluding part is more important in any writing not what is written in between. The discussion itself is long and what you claim I have cleverly avoided is irrelevant if you use your mind. swadhyayee 03:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We must also keep in mind that Manusmriti is just the point of view of Manu, and contains many extremist ideas which run contrary to mainstream principles of Hinduism, and that many of these "laws" were never implemented anywhere. Any book written in Sanskrit 2000 years ago doesn't become automatically a sacred book that ought to be followed, nor an authenitic picture of Hindu society of that time. For example, (XII. 4.)

“

If the shudra intentionally listens for committing to memory the veda, then his ears should be filled with (molten) lead and lac; if he utters the veda, then his tongue should be cut off; if he has mastered the veda his body should be cut to pieces.

”

Although we know Indian society was discriminatory, such things are still clearly just personal opinions of Manu, and we have had several counter opinions. We agree that Hinduism is not a monolithic religion, and while Manu did have some ideas that he wrote in his book, they were not binding on anyone. deeptrivia (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deeptrivia, The point here is whether the veg. part of Hinduism is effect of Jainism or Buddhism or not? In other words, Hindus were non-veg. prior to Jainism or Buddhism came into existence. The fact is Jainism and Buddhism are later religions and have effect of Hinduism or they are branches of tree of Hinduism.

Could there be not simultaneous revolution in cultivation in east and west? In east, Gautam Rushi may be behind the invention of cultivation. Are your refs. history written by Westerns?

Regarding Manu, Manu was no ordinary person/institute. If, I mistake not Bhagawan Krishna referred to Manu in Srimad Bhagwad Geeta so Manu should be earlier than Mahabharat war viz. 2000 years. My feeling from what I have heard is, lot was added to Manusmruti later. Here, the ref. of Manusmruti was to prove that veg. concept was inherent in Hinduism prior to the time of Buddhism and Jainism and veg. was no influence of these two religions upon Hinduism. Regarding putting lead in ears etc. the same may or may not literally mean so. It could be some sort of terminology. Like today, life sentence in India does not mean sentence through out life of a guilty but sentence for 14 years. Even the lawyers today in India, make note of their fees in Shillings which currency is not operative in India.

Aupmanyav, if you wanted to prove against Vedic only theory, why not talk straight? How does discussion on this question about effect of other religions on veg. going to change the minds who believe in Vedic only theory?

Magicalsaumy, will you kindly strike out "what rubbish" from your comments? swadhyayee 02:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My belief is that the Buddhists and Jains only enhanced some concepts found in Hinduism. That would mean vegetarianism and peace would have become more widespread among Hindus once Mahavir and Gautama came. In the Vedas, there is strong evidence of praising the cow and some weaker evidence of compassion for all beings. But Buddhism and Jainism must have made it a more prominent idea in Hinduism. For example, Ashoka's conversion did have massive impact. But like Swad. said it is better to review the article formally. Gizza^Chat ^© 02:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DaGizza, make clear what you mean. My appeal to all is, we discuss article para wise as suggested by you and effect necessary changes. We should channelise our enegies to improve the article "Hinduism". If, we discuss hypothetical questions, we will never be able to finalise the article. swadhyayee 03:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'If the shudra intentionally listens for committing to memory the veda, then his ears should be filled with (molten) lead and lac; if he utters the veda, then his tongue should be cut off; if he has mastered the veda his body should be cut to pieces'. There can be no greater proof that Manusmriti is heavily interpolated. The Vedas were compiled by a shudra, VedaVyas, and many of the venerated scholars of Vedas were shudras, like Vidur and Valmiki, and so were the writers of some Upanishads, like Satyakama Jabali. Aupmanyav 03:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we should have a page for a hindu free-for-all. :-) Aupmanyav 03:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DaGizza. Buddhism and Jainism drew their philosophies out of already existing philosophies ("Hinduism"), but they emphasized on some things more strongly. Official patronage meant a wider rangle of people were now following these principles. "Hindu" kings, in general, as far as I know from history, did not put in much effort, compared to the likes of Ashoka, in spreading religious values. deeptrivia (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it must have been Rishi Gautam's wife who might have discovered agriculture, because Rishi Gautam is more likely to have been busy in meditating or teaching students. It happened like that all over the globe. Men went for hunt, women gathered herbs. :-) Aupmanyav 18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikiproject saivism

It looks dead.^T*^E*^H Kingrom 01:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

huh? it's actually be more active. people actually joined. before it was worse.--D-Boy 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindu_extremism

Hi,

Some random guy recently created Hindu extremism. It is primarily an attack page. Moreover it makes no sense to have this article when we already have articles on Hindutva. Do voice your opinions at: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindu_extremism. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 20:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many scriptures, many paths.

Moving discussion from Hinduism Talk page here ... Abecedare 07:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vedic statement "ekam sad-vipraah bahudha vadanti" specifically refers to the Vedic 'devataa' Agni. Agni is one 'sat' which is referred to variously as Indra, Mitra and Varuna.Kanchanamala 06:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hence ... ? Are you proposing some expansion/deletion/correction for the section ? Abecedare 06:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, it's a reply to my query with Aupmanyavji. He had used these words. I had asked for the explanation. Thanks Kanchanmala for the explanation.

Excellent, Kanchanmala, that is how one learns. But a cursery investigation at Sacred-texts.com (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv01164.htm) tells me that the verse 1.164.46 of RigVeda is in the honor of 'Visvedavas', please visit http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Visvedevas for more information on 'Visvedevas'. Carry on and please do not ji me. Aupmanyav 08:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'vishve devaah' are the 'devataa' of 'rica's 1 to 41 in the mantra. The 'devataa' of 'rica' 46 & 47 is 'suryah', and 'rica' 46 goes on to say, "agnim yamam maatarishvaanam-aahuh". The devanagari texts in both the sources cited by you are full of errors. By the way, please don't mind if we address you with respect.Kanchanamala 03:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whole hymns are dedicated to particular devas(generally), not individual verses. 164 is to 'Visvedevah' (representing all Gods of the universe). That is why 'They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman; to what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan'. Aupmanyav 11:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is totally different from what I have been taught.Kanchanamala 02:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The standard Griffith translation of the verse supports Aupmanyav's point that verse talks of the different devas as different forms of the One, and does not single out Agni:

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan."

Can you tell us what source you are referring to and how it differs from the citation ? Here are two more sources of the text: in devanagari and in IAST. Also, to reapeat the question I had asked earlier, do you have changes on the main page in mind based on the different interpretation of the verse ? Abecedare 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Griffith were alive today, he would revise his translation.Kanchanamala 09:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you studied, who has taught you, and what book have you used? Aupmanyav 13:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, permit me to suggest one way you may consider to check what I have said. If you live in India, and if you have a university where they have a department of Sanskrit, please check with the faculty member(s) who teach the Vedas or Panini's grammar, or check with a pandit or shastri who is an 'adhyaapaka' of Rigveda. If they say that what I say is not correct, then you may just ignore what I have said about the Vedic 'devataa's.Kanchanamala 23:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advise and letting us know what Griffith would have done ! But it really would be simpler if you just let us know your source for the "correct" translation, so we may remove all errors from this and other article. Abecedare 03:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchanmala, Hope you are right about errors in translation of Griffith. I have no knowledge of the subject. My feeling is, if you can point out two to three errors providing your reasons, it should convince Aupmanyav and Abecedare of your claim. You can also state your source for correct translation or be bold and say that you challenge Griffith's translation pointing significant wrongs and your reasons. Pl. don't hesitate even if you have apprehension to be right at least it will improve your knowledge. swadhyayee 04:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare and Swadhyayee, Griffith was a great scholar, humble and sincere. He did yeoman service to the study of the Vedas in English. As for me, I don't need any translation to study the Vedas. For what I know and say, it can (and should) be checked out. There is no dearth of learned scholars.Kanchanamala 07:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchan, I would check with a Sanskrit professor who is a welknown scholar and the Director of Birla Mandir in Delhi (Dr. Nagar) and let you and other people here know (provided he is not out of India on one of his frequent visits). Aupmanyav 18:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.Kanchanamala 02:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhyayee, I have just responded to your advice.Kanchanamala 10:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu temples in Multan

I'm opposed to the merger.--D-Boy 12:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am too. — Arjun 14:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuman Chalisa

Currently, it has the complete poem in both Awadhi Hindi and a translation. I think it should be moved to Wikisource. On Wikipedia, we should write about the Hanuman Chalisa, not have the actual poem here. Does anybody disagree? Gizza^Chat ^© 09:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You'll also find it in Devanagari if you dig into the article's history. We should perhaps put that too on wikisource. deeptrivia (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi & Hinduism

Why is the Hindi language given preference in the alternative name of Hinduism ("Hindu Dharma")? There are perhaps 250 million or so Hindi-speaking Hindus, + around 650 million or so (these are ROUGH estimates) of Hindus speaking other languages, significantly Tamil, Bengali, Gujrati, Marathi, Kannada, et cetera et cetera... not to speak of Nepalis and Bali Hindus! As it is, "Hindu Dharma" is a phrase that is also used in Bengali and other languages... why Hindi? Are we making the mistake of equating Hinduism with the Indian Republic, which lists Hindi as a 'first-among-equal' language? This doesn't seem right and reduces Hinduism and its many regional and linguistically variant manifestations into a false monolith, headed by a Congress or BJP-dictated understanding of what Vedism and its offshoots ought to be. As a largely non-participating observer of Wikipedia, and in particular this Hinduism article, which I admit is getting better and better by the month, I put up my vote to take away the exclusive reference to Hindi or to alter the reference to better reflect a more objective reality (e.g. Hinduism is also known as Hindu Dharma, or Arya Dharma, or Arsh Dharma, or Veda Dharma, et cetera, in multiple Indian languages which derive and/or borrow largely from Sanskrit)... otherwise, in an effort to NPOV, we'd list all sorts of languages other than Sanskrit and include their scripts. - - Oh, and on a sidenote, Sanskrit was never exclusively written in any single script until the British and British-influenced Indologists decided to make Sanskrit hermeneutics as uniform as possible by adopting Devanagari as the only script... before the 19th century (and, to an extent this still continues on a smaller scale), regional Indian scripts were used to write Sanskrit... Devanagari included... so only the newly-developed conventions (might I add, for the better, since it would be asking a bit much for anyone to learn thirty different scripts to read the same language) have resulted in Devnagari being de facto the "Sanskrit script." --68.173.46.79 05:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we trying to bring the political fight to this forum? Only a section of Tamils find objection with Hindi. I can't understand from where the need to discuss this has arised? To what extent a non-contributory, un-regd. editor can object? swadhyayee 06:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's gone. no more problems.--D-Boy 09:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sheesh, the "Hindi" tag was just meant to emphasize it is not Sanskrit. I do think the term has enough notability to be listed, and if it is not just Hindi, why don't we just say so for godssakes? How about Hindustani? dab (𒁳) 09:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about tamil, bengali, and tulu? The devangari of the sanskrit on the first one is enough.--D-Boy 13:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanatan also is no more exclusive to Sanskrit, I suppose it is used even in South Indian languages (Cologne Tamil English Lexicon, though there might be another word also for it), apart from those in other parts of India. Basically we could (if all agree) remove reference to languages. Aupmanyav 15:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Went back to the article, Hindustani is a bigger joke than Sanskrit, Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, or Bengali. Aupmanyav 16:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion still is, 'Hinduism, Hindu Dharma, or Sanatan Dharma (eternal law) is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent.' Simple, no controversies. Aupmanyav 17:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tamil name is closer to sanatanam dharmam. Sanskrit nouns easily fit in with Tamil grammar as any native (non-DMK) Tamil speaker can tell you.Baka man 18:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" Only a section of Tamils find objection with Hindi." This is a highly dubious comment. The "first among equals" of Indian languages concept came about with the Indian Republic and the British Raj before... Hinduism has never been exclusively or even predominantly carried by any language other than Sanskrit, which gave way to the proliferation of so many regional and linguistic varieties... Indeed, some of the biggest movements of recent history in India came about in South Indian and Bengali contexts (Ramana Maharshi, Ramakrishna, Chaitanya, et cetera)... even English to an extent (Vivekananda, Yogananda, and no matter what people say, the repackaged yoga ideologies of Swami Rama, ISCKON and Iyengar)... so, in my opinion, "Hindi" should be removed.... you could use "hindu dharma" and say that Hinduism is known, in many current Indian languages, as Hindu Dharma, thereby, as Aupmanyav recommended, avoiding massive POV inclined towards Hindi as the language of choice for Nehru and Gandhian descended political interests. --68.173.46.79 22:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Tamil Nadu, anti-Hindi is usually synonymous with anti-Hindu, but thats off topic. If by a section, the person in question meant a large chunk then yes.Baka man

While I see what you're saying, Baka, I disagree to an extent. There's an extremely vocal group which equates anti-Hindi and anti-Hindu (usually lower-caste Tamils), but there's a significant portion of the Hindu population which are staunchly Hindu but still hold virulently against 'Hindi incursion'. It's very similar in Bengal, where some groups feel threatened by Hindi and yet are as Hindu as they come. --68.173.46.79 19:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

68.173 (but what's in a name?), why do you say things with which I generally agree? Yes, it is the big brother syndrome, the same which makes Nepal anti-India. Aupmanyav 04:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the north all just speak sanskrit and get along. personally, i despise hindi. too much persian in it for my taste. what's the proto-south indian language?--D-Boy 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the whole of north but perhaps more people there, if anyone would like to speak in Marwari or Awadhi, what is wrong in it? However, you can try DD type pure Hindi. Suits many people. Proto-South Indian language - is there one? Aupmanyav 13:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi in all its dialects is a beautiful language. The Persianised ghazals are just as sweet as the Sanskritised Hindu poetry. What is wrong with Persian? It is similar to Sanskrit anyway and much of Hindi's beauty comes from its variety of Sanskrit and Persian vocabulary. Just like English, Hindi derives from a number of languages and accepts foreign words. It is not restrivtive like French. Words from languages such as Punjabi are constantly being thrown into the vernacular. Bombay Hindi brings in the beauty of Marathi. Sanskrit is a complicated language and from now on shall only be a literary language. Whats the point of reading the Agni Purana or Yajurveda when the meaning of these texts aren't even certain? The reason why six darshans appeared was because Vedic Sanskrit is so mysterious. The texts can't be translated completely on a literal level nor completely on a metaphorical level. Otherwise they don't make too much sense. Alternatively, people can read the Hanuman Chalisa or for matter hear bhajans and kathas in Bengali, Gujarati, Tamil (which is probably closest to the Proto-South Indian language), Kannad, Oriya etc. The Hindu traditions have survived because of the modern languages. Keeping all the texts in Sanskrit would have made the religion collapse. Gizza^Chat ^© 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit can't be that complicated. I thought chinese was complicated. it's not. It's just tones. Its like music. no language is complicated if you teach at an early level.--D-Boy 08:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude you really dont know what you are saying! Sanskrit IS goddamn complicated. Try learning it, all those forms, samases and clauses would freeze your nuts.. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 16:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complexity of Sanskrit

D-Boy, I studied Sanskrit formally for two years and continue to do so as a hobby. Let me assure you that it is a complicated language, especially whose native language isn't Indo-Aryan. I can't say too much about Chinese, but from what people have told me about it, I think the only harder issues in Chinese compared to Sanskrit would be the script and maybe the pronounciation. Even the, Devanagari or any abugida as well as aspirations, retroflexes, trills, stressed schwas etc. aren't walks in the park! I will give many reasons why I believe Sanskrit is a complicated language. Some of these reasons apply for all non Indo-Aryan languages and some reasons apply for nearly all languages ever recorded on this planet. (I can't guarantee this for languages spoken 20,000 years ago in Africa or Australia for example)

Inflections -- Sanskrit is by far the most inflected language I know of. The only languages that may have a similar amount are other ancient Indo-European langauages such as Hittite, Proto-Indo-Iranian..., which are closely related to Sanskrit anyway. Inflections in case you don't know are alteration to the endings of words (Examples in English include bite -> biting, shoes -> shoes). The numbers of way, reasons and places Sanskrit words can change is imcomparable to all modern languages and to many ancient languages. I will discuss many of these changes later on.

Dual form -- In English and in most other languages, there is the singular form and the plural form. Simples example - one cat, two cats, three cats etc. When there is more than one thing in English, generally as "s" is added.

In Sanskrit, there is a dual form which means whenever there is two of something, the noun has a particular ending. In fact this even applies to verbs. Example: One word for city/town in Sanskrit is nagaram. In English - one town, two towns, three towns, four towns. In Sanskrit - (& this only applies for the nom, voc, acc, cases which I will discuss later on) eka nagaram, dvau nagarau, triṇī nagarāni, chatur nagarāni etc. I'm quite sure there is a story called haṃsau kacchapaca (The two swans and the tortoise) in the Hitopadesha or Panchatantra.

Because of the dual form present in both the nouns & verbs, there is a extra 50% of possible combinations in the declension and conjugation tables than in most other languages. Actually, it is more than 50% for nouns if you take the Grammatical cases into account.

Cases -- For nouns, they are inflected mainly through cases. Cases are added to the endings of the noun to describe the situation of the noun. In English, pronouns do this job. Sanskrit has a fe pronouns but are rarely used and when they are used, the cases still apply. For example, there is no (common) Sanskrit word for "in." When you want to write "In the boy" (one of the words for boy in general/stem form is putra) you have to write putre. Similarly, to say from the boy, you write putrāt. The case changes whether the noun is the subject or object of the sentence. In total there are eight cases -Nominative, Vocative, Accusative, Instrumental, Dative, Ablative, Genitive and Locative.

As a comparison, Latin has 6 cases, Ancient Greek has five, the Romance languages and Chinese have one for everything, German has four, English has two (eg. man's for genitive, man for everything else)

Remember the dual form. This means one declension in Sanskrit can have up to 8x3x3 (note there are three genders) = 72 possible combinations. Latin can have up to 6x2x3 = 36. English has four (dog, dogs, dog's, dogs') Moreover, the number of declensions in Sanskrit exceeds mostother languages. They can be "broadly grouped" into two, those with their stem ending in a vowel and those whose stems end in consonants. But in reality, you have to know much more than that. There are the three genders, for vowels I know of at least 7 different endings (a, ā, i, ī, u, ū, ṛ) and the consonants can have roots that end in many more.

The one good thing about Sanskrit is that there are no definite articles (the) nor any real indefinite articles (a, an). However, this means demonstrative pronouns are commonly used and also decline. There are probably 50 different words for "this" and another 50 for "that," though there is some sort of pattern between the two.

Sandhi -- Firstly, read the Wiki-article. All languages have Sandhi, (in English "of" is pronounced like "ov" before voiced consonants but like "off" before unvoiced consonants) but in Sanskrit the changes are written down. A common example is namaḥ (Om namaḥ śivāya). It has exactly the same meaning in namaste and namo (As in Om namo bhagavate vāsudevāya) The only reason the word changes is because of the words around it. And that is only external Sandhi. Internal Sandhi is at another level. The locative case of putra without Sandhi would be putresu but because there is an "r" in the root/stem, the "s" changes to a "ṣ" (pronounced close to "sh").

An excellent example of Sandhi is the word Bhagavad Gita. Sankrit words never end in "d". The actual word is bhagavat (God). Because "g" is a voiced consonant, the "t" changes into a "d". This also occurs in spoken English (eg. better in some dialects is pronounced as "bedda"), but it is never written down in any other language. Writing down/observing Sandhi in modern Indo-Aryan languages doesn't occur but its presence is still felt in Hindu name. Ganesh is Gana + Ish, Mahendra is Maha + Indra etc.

Vocabulary -- My previous points all pertain to grammar but I now shift to another area. The vocabulary is so rich in Sanskrit. As you know there are thousands of words to describe God (even if you are not a Smarta, there is at least one thounsand, see sahasranama). There are innumberable words for animals, types/proffessins of people and the list is endless. Off the top of my head, I can remember two words for cat, four for elephant and three for mountain and I havn't translated Sanskrit texts properly since a year ago. From a English speaking perspective (For that matter it applies for most languages) there are many Sanskrit words which cannot be translated with one word. They can only be explained with a phrase or sentence. This is one reason why in the Hinduism article, many Sanskrit terms have to stay. Samsara has to be translated with a phrase. The number of these is enormous.

Script/Pronunciation -- Like I previously said these are tough challenges especially for non-native speaker of other Indo-Aryan languages. Even if you are a native Indo-Aryan speaker, Sankrit will cause more hurdles than the other languages. See Image:JanaSanskritSans_ddhrya.png. Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, Punjabi speakers can all pronounced each of those sounds on the image independtly. But how on earth are they meant to pronounced them together? How is someone, even in their local non-Devanagari script meant to remember how to write such a ligature. Writing never integral for Ancient Indians but in this day and age it is, so I wonder how the 600 million (plucked out of thin air) North Indians are supposed to write in Sanskrit? The worst thing pronouned is the "a" at the end of words. It is a schwa, like the "e" in the French word "je", a in "about." Everyone pronounces it like "ā," very wrong because the meaning changes from masculine to feminine. If Shiva and Krishna have their "a"s pronounced long, they mean Parvati/Durga and Radha respectively. The Hare Krishnas pronounce "a"s wrongly whenever I hear them so they are acutally praying to Radha instead of Krishna! (then again, they say Radha and Krishna are inseparable parts of each other). Another is the "ai" and "au". The "a" in these dipthongs is again the schwa. "ai" is not pronouced like "I", nor is it is pronounced like ē, which is how it is pronounced in modern Indo-Aryan languages.

Compound Words -- Frist read Sanskrit#Compounds. This isn't a very complicated matter. But the problem is that sometimes words aren't compounds, but are joined together. This means a sentence with eight words can have some of the words stuck together for no reason so it appears as if there are 3 longers words. This is still minor bucause some languages like Latin had no spaces between the words. In a sense the whole text would be one very very long word.

Minor things word syntax varies in Sanskrit but is generally SOV. Chinese has SVO the same as English. The word "iti" can cause dilemmas. Sometimes it signifies an end of a quote, at other times it means the word "thus". To elaborate on word syntax, the word for and "ca" (pronouned cha) doesn't go in between the words but after the second word. eg. narabiḍalaca - The man and the cat (Note I joined the words together). But This occurs in some other languages like que in Latin.

Some clarifications

My argument sounds as if learning Sanskrit is a nightmare, which it can be but then you ask "Why are there so many prolific Sanskrit scholars out there?" I will answer that question. Translating Sanskrit to English is twenty times easier than English to Sanskrit (or X language to Sanskrit, unless its Pali or Avestan :p) For instance, identifying Sandhi is a mechanical process after awhile ("ur" is actually "us", "o" is actually "ah", blah blah blah) but writing with Sandhi is bloody, bloody hard. Western Sanskrit academics don't need to pronounce the words, they only translate texts. But imagine trying to speak it fluently. Hindi and modern Indian language, on the other hand, has much less inflection, can be pronounced easier etc. etc. One last point is that Sanskrit words can be very ambiguous at times. In the Rig Veda, it once says "gavam" which according to some scholars can perfect/aorist (<- just guessing!) form of the verb to go, it can mean cow, or even something else according to Tilak which he pulls out of nowhere since he way trying to prove that the Vedas were created in the Artic region during the Ice Age! If it wasn't for Panini, who regularised Sanskrit grammar from then on, it would have been an even steeper mountain to climb for many of the early Indologists. There, I'm finished. Gizza^Chat ^© 00:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gizza, I agree (and sympathize :-) ) with almost everything you said above. Just a couple of additional points though:

In the "cases" discussion, I assume you meant prepositions (in, on, for etc) rather than pronouns.
Sanskrit vocabulary is large for an ancient language, but pales in comparison with English. This is largely because it (like Latin and Greek) is not really a living language, and therefore its word set has hardly grown in the last few millenia or been enriched (some say polluted) by interaction with other languages. So you'll be hard pressed to find native words for concepts developed during that long period which saw a prolific expansion of human knowledge. A favorite example for me is the "Sanskritized" term for "railway station" in Hindi: loh path gaamini aava gaman kendra (lit. "center for coming and going of traveler over steel paths") ... of course, even Indian Railways calls itself भारतीय रेल

That said, I think Sanskrit is a beautiful language to study due to its "logical" structure, though I too wouldn't recommend it for common use. In one sense, this has been proven by the historical developments too - in that off-springs such as Pali, Hindi etc, evolved from and prevailed over Sanksrit (alkthough that is a somewhat simplistic reading of history) Abecedare 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that preposition mistake I made :) I agree with you that most inventions in the last 500 years or so don't have good translations in Sanskrit. Because of the ridiculous Sanskritised terms which are officially used in most modern Indian languages, Indians prefer to use English words for television, computer, internet (antar-jaal!) etc. These words are used by nearly all languages today. In Italian, T.V. is televisione and computer/internet are the same pronounced in an Italian accent. Your point on off-springs is true but I think off-springs develop because that happens to all languages. One of Jimbo's goals is to preserve the languages of the 21st century with Wikipedia so in a thousand years time, they will be tourists hovering over Pluto speaking English, Hindi and Russian :) And yes of course Sanskrit is a beautiful language. One of the reasons I learned Sanskrit very quickly was that it is the language of the Divine, Whose Presence is everywhere :p. For this reason, I managed to remember an the Sanskrit and an English translation of the third chapter of the Bhagavad Gita so easily! Gizza^Chat ^© 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Girik if you expand on that essay we'd have "Sanskrit for Dummies"! Anyways I can translate Sanskrit sentences and small paragraphs if you give me a few helpful Sandhi and Compound hints... Though its a pain to formulate Sanskrit sentences given all the inflections. Only grammatically correct senetence i can write is Ameyaryanaha iti mama namdheyam. And I studied Sanskrit for 3 years! All i've got to show are those useless forms and compounds i learnt! I cant even string two Sanskrit sentences together. Heck the day i took my Sanskrit GCSE, i kissed the ground as soon as i came out of my school... Thank God its over. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 08:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ameya (I suppose Amey is not correct), take out Aryan from your name and give it to Gizza. Aupmanyav 07:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why no categorization as Indian History?

I was reading through some of the wonderful short articles about Rishis such as Shaunaka by DBachmann and I was wondering why they did not have any categorization as Indian history. I feel the thoughts advanced by a number of these people represent a deep historical significance in the progression of Indian history.

Thanks, Khiray

Because India has the wierdest separation of church and state.--D-Boy 04:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of mandir/gurudwara/stupa and state, merger of church/mosque and state.Baka man 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I was just asking why these articles are not categorized under Indian History on Wikipedia. Thanks Khiray 01:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Khiray[reply]

Vedic only

The Vedic Gods are no more the principal Gods of Hinduism. Vishnu was only a minor God in Vedas. The worship of Vishnu is not as strong in Kashmir, Punjab, and Haryana as compared to what prevails in South India. The identification of Rudra with Shiva at the least is very tenacious. There were supposed to be eleven Rudras. How come they crystalized into one Shiva. The major Gods that hindus worship now are all non-Vedic, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Skanda, Ganesha, Hanuman, Bhairava and other local Gods. Rama and Krishna are not even mentioned in the Vedas. There are legends which show defeat of Vedic Gods, like defeat of Indra by Krishna or defeat of Daksha performing an Aryan ceremony by Shiva. Brahma's worship is prohibited and there are very few temples devoted to him. All these show that apart from Vedic philosophy, there was a very strong and popular philosophy in India. I have no objection to a person believing that Hinduism is Vedic only, but this lame view should not be reflected in the Wikipedia article. I have no hesitation in accepting that the Vedic philosophy affected Hinduism greatly and that Vedas are our most important scriptures, but this does not mean that we should disregard other influences in Hinduism and not give them their due. It is derogatory and fractitious to people who do not think that they are from Aryan stock, and India has a large percentage of such people. Aupmanyav 17:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dravidian is an artificial construct Aupmanyav. Hinduism is based on the Vedas, I personally am a person who in your terms "is not from Aryan stock". After the Vedas came things like Ups. and Agamas. Newer converts to Hinduism Balinese, Meitei, Bodo, Khmer only inculcated the Agamas into their life, just as the Thais, Tibetans only took in Buddhism. Why is everything in your view related to race? Its like people who think Drona was a casteist instead of merely noting that he was selfish and crude. Daksha was merely a vain idiot that got his ass kicked for being too rude and uppity. There's no Aryan/Dravidian/Mongoloid bakwaas in it, it is what it is.Baka man 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize Aupmanyav's arguments, with some reservations. I am too distres just now to comment, after Saddam Hussein met a tragic demise from the US manipulated puppet government of Iraq. Cygnus_hansa 20:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, he has merged with Brahman. :-) Aupmanyav 10:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aupmanyav, wasn't he Brahman even before he died :-)? Anyway, I have a question for those who support the Aryan migration theory (I know some people here don't). From what I have learned, it is likely that if the Aryan Theory is correct, the "native" Indians believed in an earlier form of Shaivism and/or Shaktism, since murtis of Pashupati and Mother Goddess have been found. When Vishnu is mentioned in I think the Atharva Veda, he is a solar god. The Bhagawat Purana that Surya and Vishnu are the same God. Could this mean that Vishnu was an Aryan deva rather than a local one? Gizza^Chat ^© 12:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was Brahman even to start with, only that we have a veil before our eyes which does not allow us to see that. It is Brahman which constitutes all substances (living or non-living), time, and space. Reference to Vishnu is Vedas is minor and my personal belief is that it was introduced after Aryans had merged with Indians (you know I am a votary of Tilak and AMT), saying that Vishnu and Surya are same is the our old amalgamation trick. Even Vishnu is perhaps a composite of various regional Gods of India, Krishna from Vraja and Dwarika, Rama from Ayodhya, Parashurama from Gujarat coast, Nri-Simha from Andhra Pradesh, and Vamana from Kerala (reference to Mahabali); just as Durga might be a composite of various mother godesses of India. Finally, they merged everything in Brahman; Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh, and all Aryan Gods; and made the female principle inseparable from it as Maya, that is the final solution. Aupmanyav 06:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu bias watch

I was wondering whether this would be warranted. We could create a subsect of the Hinduism Project or this noticeboard which can hold a list of various articles which have varying degrees of possible Hindu bias.

All Hindutva related articles - these articles are normally very controversial
Articles bearing possible Anti-Hindu biases.
Articles bearing possible Pro-Hindu biases.
Articles bearing controversies relating to Hinduism the religion (not political debates on modern Hindus)

Just create it and people will hopefully populate it with articles. Then anyone can go any add the pages on the watch to their watchlist and ensure that bias, both pro and anti-Hindu, is eliminated. Just make sure you're clean on Wikipolicies and make sure you don't exploit this, and I don't think people will have problems with it like they did with the Fundy Watch. Also could have a talk page somewhere for discussions relating to multiple articles dealing with the watch. This is just an idea, there may be something like this already that I don't know about. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Hinduism-related editors on Wiki aren't concerned with controversies. In fact, most of us are only concerned about the main Hinduism article, because we are so desperately trying to FA it. It might be better for Hindutvaadis to organise their own WikiProject or something and leave the other Hindus alone. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really see a point in such a thing. It would either be a Hindu politics project or Hindutva project. those projects in itself would be bias.--D-Boy 09:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No there is no point creating a Hindutva Project, it would be biased as D-Boy said. Anyway, Happy New Year! Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DaGizza I find your comment in bad taste. Those of us who are considered Hindutvavadis ("being Hindu-ists")are the reason that wikipedia has any articles on Hinduism outside of India. In fact were the only reason Hinduism articles are categorized, temples have nice infoboxes, and there are articles on Manipuri history on wiki. Much better than people bickering over esoteric philosophical bakwaas.Baka man 00:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was my comment in bad taste? All I suggested was to create a separate Hindutva project where controversial Hindu article can be dealt with. Many members of WP:HINDU can join that project and you can discuss the controversial issues by yourselves but there will other WP:HINDU members who don't want to deal with any of that stuff. There is no reason why the "Hindu-ists" or whatever you want to be called can't be part of the bigger Hinduism project (In fact, most of you are). It would just be a sub-project. And if such a project were to be created, non-Hindus, including those who are considered by some as anti-Hindus will have to be allowed to join the Hindu politics project, so that there will be no bias. I know that Dangerous-Boy and co. are an integral part of the project when it comes to organisation but how is that related to being a Hindutvaadi. Gizza^Chat ^© 04:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found "leave the other Hindus alone" to be unsavory. The point dagizza is that those of us who are called Hindutvavadis (which translates into "Hindu-ness-ists") are also the least religious and have the least baggage to carry. What we are doing is also WP:HINDU, though in a more worldly sense. I believe that in the house of dharma they talk of a spiral, the spiral starts with bettering oneself but by the time you reach the exterior, you're work is helping all of mankind. Unlike the Hinduism main page charcha-vadis and bhoudik-vadis, we seem to do all the kaam and seva. As the Talk:Hinduism page clearly shows, if it wasnt for our efficient style of working the page would still be discourses on esoteric texts which only .00000000000000000000001% of Hindus have ever heard of. The Jews dont have any issues mixing religion and politics, I dont see why we have to let people with obvious biases against our dharma boss us around. Making a "no bias" project makes no sense as said project would be skewed against the Hindus. I've always been an advocate of all around bettering rather than focusing on the main article which frankly sucks for every other belief (besides Sikhism). You all have a watchlist function, use it. We dont need to act like a cabal.Baka man 06:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most, though I admit not all of the Talk:Hinduism guys have contributed greatly to other Hinduism articles. Raj, Priyanath, Saiva Sujit, Gouranga Dbachmann, myself and others have worked on articles other than the main Hinduism page. The other users I see stuck on Talk:Hinduism are Aupmanyav and Swadhyayee to a lesser extent. Even Swad. has contributed to Swadhyay Parivar. If you check the histories of various Hinduism articles, you will notice that most of us are not confined to the main page. Adi Shankara is an FA, mainly due to User:Babub. I don't think the current state of Hinduism is very philosophically based. The 2004 article which was FA was almost completely philosophical. The current article talks about Hindu cultural practises as well IMO. A little emphasis on the philosophy and a bit more on traditions won't do too much harm but remember the life of a guru/swami is just as important as the life the average, not very educated Hindu. I'm sorry if I sounded rude with my previous comment. Everybody has opposed the Hindutva sub-project anyway. Gizza^Chat ^© 08:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no point creating the Hindutva subproject, but just note that oddly enough you gave me the idea Gizza. :) I found a few articles that possessed biases and I remembered the Fundy Watch which you said was a good concept and said something about perhaps creating a similar project...anyway... Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 22:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aupmanyav is not stuck on just the Hinduism page, he contributes to Hindu, History of Hinduism, History of Vedic Religion, and Vedas. You cannot expect him to contribute (whatever he can) to each of the Hinduism-related pages (there are too many of them), though he would like to do so. Baks, I consider myself to be a hindutvavadi, but please do not consider all discussion as 'bakwaas'. As you know, all my present efforts are directed against two biases that 1. Hinduism is purely Vedic, and 2. Hinduism is a monotheistic religion. I believe the 'Hinduism' article is already very long, it should be pruned as far as possible, and addition of new subjects should be avoided and taken to new pages, Raja Yoga is perhaps one such example. Aupmanyav 06:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aupmanyavji, it would be all right if you asked to have your viewpoint accommodated in the article. But there is no need to keep badgering others to exclusively accept your opinions. Coexistence and accommodation are part of our culture: "titikshaa mata-bhedeshu".Kanchanamala 09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchan, I believe in co-existence and accommodation. I have no problem with people's personal views, but Wikipedia article should not say that Vedas are the exclusive foundation of Hinduism, and that Hinduism in essence is monotheistic and all other ways are unsophisticated. I do not think it is Wikipedia policy to have lopsided views. Aupmanyav 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To all - I was not referring to any users in particular, though I was referring to a general trend that's been going on since Babub left. I never singled out any user here, though I will direct my ire at the large amount of talking and minimal amount of editing. The fastest way to make articles better is to be bold and a good strategy is to get more traffic to Hinduism pages is to edit pages like January 11 and 1779 and add Hinduism related stuff there, and then edit subpages of the main article.Baka man 01:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Baka, I agree with you. It is all of our faults partly. To Aup. I think the issues you are addressing (only Vedic and only monotheistic) have been fixed. This is one of the sentences: Modern Hinduism originates from the ancient Vedic tradition (Vaidika paramparā) and other indigenous beliefs, incorporated over time. Another part of a sentence: spanning polytheism[citation needed], monotheism, panentheism, monism and arguably even atheism. We have a whole paragraph on atheism here in the later part of the Concept of God section. What more do want? The truth is, no matter how diverse it is, that at the moment (I know it changes a lot) most Hindus believe in a monotheism with some elements of polytheism. The article has to reflect that regardless of how diverse it is. Gizza^Chat ^© 02:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that there is a alot of bias and alot of whitewashing in article histories. "Watchlist-style" pages are a good idea, they could also be made on the user domain and be linked from here, but ultimately Hindus must start researching, expanding and writing articles to counter the bias. The Hindu-Wikipedians get the Wikipedia they deserve.

Check for example this diff: [2] Can you spot the difference? What is the difference? Why is there a difference? How many such edits go unnoticed? One of those edits was reverted by a user who is banned today [3] How many of the editors that make such edits get banned in the first place? While on the other hand, articles which are potentially disagreeable to an anti-Hindu perspective are selectively scrutinized for AFD, for notability, or for npov, like the articles on Koenraad Elst [4] orSita Ram Goel [5]. --Bondego 13:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I was pained at the treatment meted out to references to Konrad Elst's work. He has done good research on the subject, he gives ample reasons, though I too do not agree with him but his views deserve a consideration. Does being a professor of history in some university essential to pursue a research? How come B.G.Tilak wrote such wonderful books. It all depends on the person's integrity and devotion to the subject. Alexander Cunningham was an enginner and a Major-General in British India, but he did excellent work on Indian history as the Surveyor General of Archeological Survey of India. Do you know that he walked 16 miles in a nallah to see whether Alexander's soldiers could have travelled the distance to Jhelum in one night, and he commonly walked around mounds in Punjab and Haryana to find the circumferance to see if they matched with the description given by Huen Tsang or Fa Hian?Aupmanyav 09:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow things are complicated here. I agree that just getting references that balance a lot of this bias would help a lot. It is hard to argue with references. Of course, the opposing side can have its own references too, and that is great because then an outsider can try to learn what is going on. I have to admit that before this I had never heard of Hindutva, and I still only have the vaguest idea of what it is or what it means. Nationalist movement? Political party? Hindu pride movement? Prejudiced? Not prejudiced at all but inclusive? I see all these opinions and it makes it impossible to know what to think. But at least I realize there is some controversy, even if I cannot quite decide what it means. And that is what an outsider can take away from articles on Hindutva; there is controversy. So that is useful information, at least. Hindus and associated groups clearly formed one of the great civilizations in earth history. Hindus are prominent in every major field all around the world. Surely it is not controversial to say that. But then there are all kinds of other statements associated with this discussion that I really do not understand at all. Oh well. --Filll 17:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Join the club. I had never heard of "Hindutva" before I joined Wikipedia even though I was a fairly religious Hindu and had a reasonable knowledge of it. Gizza^Chat ^© 23:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit glossary

A good list of sanskrit words and meanings. I use it on hindi wiki, perhaps we can wikitionary this or something.^T*^E*^H Kingrom 05:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apostasy in Hinduism

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_1#Category:Former_Hindus and the article Apostasy in Hinduism. The religious texts are essentially silent on apostasy.Baka man 20:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Vedic religion

There are currently about 200 ambiguous links to the disambiguation page at Vedic religion. It would be very helpful if someone with knowledge on the subject could retarget the links to appropriate articles (the links can be found by clicking "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of the page). The page has been listed for about six months as a problem at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, but it seems that no one working there has the know-how to handle the corrections. Disambiguation can be done faster using the CorHomo tool. Please help if you can! Dekimasu 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamakhya

my goodness- the information that is wrong about kamakhya outmumbers the right stuff. I'mnot kidding- it wold be easier to delete the page and start again than to 'fix' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.94.116.70 (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The best thing to do is to remove all the wrong information. Even if only two sentences are left over, that will be better than deleting it. You can do it yourself since not that many people here may know the specific part of the Shiva/Sati story that deals with Kamakhya. Gizza^Chat ^© 21:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Thanks. I hope I do not say anything offensive so please bear with me. I know next to nothing about Hinduism.

Are there different sects of Hinduism?
Do these sects get along?
How prevalent is the notion that the Vedic creation story actually is true in Hinduism and in India?
Are there ever any charges that Vedic science is pseudoscience?
Is the ISKCON a non Hinduism sect? Are they nondoctrinal ? Fringe?
Are there ISKCON representatives or Hinduism believers who are similar to ISKCON in India or in mainstream Hinduism?
How different are the beliefs of ISKCON from Hinduism as a whole? And in what ways?
What is Hindutva? Are they connected with Hinduism in any way?
Why did the US state department issue concerned reports about Hindutva's influence on school textbooks in India?
Who is a Hindutva and who is not? How can one tell the difference?
Who is Swami Prakashanand Saraswati? Is he well known?

Sorry for so many questions. I really know nothing at all and I am just trying to understand.--Filll 22:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for answering. I hope I did not offend and I do not want to offend in any way shape or form. Permit me to ask a few more questions then:

Roughly what fraction of Hindus would you find who claimed, based on Vedic scriptures or teachings:

"I believe that man was alive at the same time as dinosaurs",
"I believe that the earth is more than 5 billion years old,"
"I believe that man does not evolve physically with time"
"I believe that my ancestors were NOT rat-like creatures, and before that lizards, and before that fish, and before that primitive sea creatures"
"I believe all living creatures on earth do not have the same ancestors"
"I believe the earth has been through multiple cycles of rebirth and men were recreated each cycle"
"Man is descended from demigods and goddesses at the start of each cycle"
"the following are sciences: astrology, vastu, yogic flying, Vedic creationism, transcendental meditation or ayurveda."
Would agree with
It is a fact that in the world almost all the academic literature in English about Hinduism, even by Hindu writers, bears the western influence, and that, none of these books represent the correct view of total authentic Hinduism. Historians forget that one cannot determine the history of Bharatvarsh on meager archaeological findings of coins, toys and pots. Whereas the general history of Bharatvarsh is already written in its scriptures and the Puranas whose texts and the philosophical descriptions are the outcome of the Gracious and benevolent minds of eternal Saints.
would agree with
In no way could there be any comparison of the western religions (which are based on mythologies) with the Hindu Vedic religion which is eternal, universal and is directly revealed by the supreme God.
would agree with
Divine writings cannot be analyzed in a material way. How could a worldly being, possessed with the vehemence of his own passions and desires, try to argue with the writings of Sages and Saints whose entire life was a divine benevolence for the souls of the world? You should know that all of our religious writings are Divine facts, and facts always remain facts, they cannot become myths. Using the word myth for our religious history is a serious spiritual transgression.

--Filll 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, where to start :D. Please understand that I am an American (contrary to popular belief around here). I do know some things, but first I am going to copy and paste this entire discussion on the talk page of the WP:HNB. That way more people will be able to jump in. — Arjun 23:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get started by saying yes there are different denominations of Hinduism. The largest being Vaishnavism, also there is Saivism and then there is also Shaktism and then there is Smartism. Also refer to Hindu denominations for more info. — Arjun 23:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also as far as I know...no there hasn't been any large scuffles between sects. As Hinduism is a different from say an Abrahamic Religion. Hinduism tends to be pluralistic towards other religions. As for ISKON more commonly known as "Hare Krishna" is a different story. — Arjun 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I will say I have provided my opinions here User_talk:Filll#Answers_to_your_question. I answered every single one of his questions. Please read them and give some feedback. Thanks Gizza^Chat ^© 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes I would like anyone to tell me if they agree or disagree with what DaGizza wrote. It is all very interesting. I know so little. So let me ask:

How many Hindus believe that there were men (modern men like those you see around you) walking around on THIS earth 500,000 years ago ? 1 million years ago? 10 million? 50 million? more?
So if I am reincarnated first as a worm, then a fish, then a dog, then a monkey and then a man, can I be reincarnated going backwards? Do all people go through all stages at the same time? Are all worms at once, and then all become fish, and then all become dogs?
What do you think of fossil records of man and animals? Other hindus think the same?
what do you think of radioactive dating methods? Other hindus think the same?--Filll 23:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer these but I'll let other provide their own opinion now. I must say that this is like that guy CyberAnth who wanted to learn about Hinduism's view on sex and masturbation and the Hindu texts talk very little about it (Kama Sutra is not a holy book!). Hinduism doesn't in general focus on this kind of stuff. Gizza^Chat ^© 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont care about hindu sex. I have read that modern men have lived on earth for millions of years, according to the vedas. --Filll 23:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I will answer your second question (third part) here because it is very non-controversial and simple. Reincarnation depends on your Karma (yes that word comes from Hinduism originally). In short, good souls reincarnate to higher forms of life. Bad people reincarnate backwards. That is the essence of it and it only gets a little bit more complicated than that. Gizza^Chat ^© 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I have asked things that are controversial? What about the quotes that I gave? Any opinions on those? --Filll 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism isn't so particular on creation like other religions. I believe your concerns relate to Hindu creationism? I would really oppose you to making too much of a deal of ISKCON, I don't think they can really represent the majority of Hindus. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 00:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that ISKCON represents the majority of Hindus, just as I do not think that Pentecostals represent the majority of Christians or Lubbuvitchers represent the majority of Jews. I am just trying to find out what the beliefs are and how to put what I have read and been told into perspective without offending too many people.--Filll 00:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindus who are creationists

Dear All, please note that the above queries were being asked in regards to the article Hindus who are creationists. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 22:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a problem? I notice many people are extremely hyper sensitive. I do not want to step on any toes. I want to respect people's feelings while documenting this controversy that obviously exists. Now you can try to deny the controversy. You can claim the opposing view is nonsense. Ok fine give me a reference or two that claim the opposite side is stupid and wrong. I will be glad to put them in. I would be glad to.--Filll 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have numbered your questions. A hindu can give answer only for himself, because another person can have a different view. There has never been a census of how many hindus believe what, so no percentages, quantification by majority, many, few, etc. 1. Innumerable. 2. Excellently, each blaring its own trumpet. 3. Hindus have to provide lip-service to Vedas and then can have any view. Is there a Vedic creation theory? They are allegories. 4. Vedas do not have much science, there are astute astronomical observations. Puranas have raging imaginations in stories which are concerned with morals. That is poetic fancy and not science. 5. ISKCON is both, hindu, as well as non-hindu, they have not made up their mind. They are doctrinal. 6. Vaishnavas, from which ISKCON derives, are a majority. 7. The question is not correct. Why should a hindu worry about what ISKCON believes in? If they are hindus, welcome, if they are not, just as good. 8. Hindutva is related hinduism, but hinduism is not related to hindutva. Some hindus are strident about their belief, most are not. 9. That is real-politic. After all the American president is a born-again christian. 10. One whose pride in hinduism shows. 11. Swamis, I would contest even Dayanand, Vivekananda, or Aurobindo. I would respect if his message or reason appeals to me.

Second set: 1. I know for sure it is not correct. 2. It is 4.5 billion years old. 3. He does. 4. They were. 5. They had. 6. I don't know. Big Bang is a singularity. 7. Not true, no Gods, only the universal substrate, Brahman. 8. Vastu: Direction of sun, wind, correct; rest hogwash. Ayurveda: Search for what may be beneficial, 'Serpina'. Meditation: Has recorded benefits, bio-feedback; flying, airlines better. 9. I think B.G.Tilak's view is correct, though he wrote in English. What is written is important not the language. Myths in Puranas and Vedas do give clues to historians, it would be unscientific to dismiss them. After all, Troy was discovered through Illiad. The research goes on. 10. What is eternal is 'Dharma', the rules for interpersonal and intersocial behavior, it is quite universal, though many religions claim it as their own, like the Ten Commandments of the christians or the Noble Eight-Fold path of the Buddhists. It came up gradually as we evolved from monkeys to homonids to humans. 11. You are saying two things. First that there is Divine writing, second that the sages and saints wrote. There are no divine writings. Vedas were written by many sages. They were wise people and what they said had substance, that is why it is remembered. Myths evolve out of history or desire of people to perpetuate some socially useful trait. Aupmanyav 03:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third set: I see that you have more questions. Does answering all gets me a Toyota? 1. How would I know, no census, I believe humans evolved perhaps less than 200,000 years ago. Many hindus in villages would not know even their own age, what to talk of age of humans. 2. There is no reincarnation, there is dispersion, one atom from you could go to a flower, another to a pig, yet another to a stone. 3. Some hindus worship fossils as idols of Vishnu (Shaligram). Yes, old bones turn into fossils with time. 4. Radioactive dating methods generally give accurate ages of objects within the limits indicated by scientists. Other hindus may think you are talking about Radio or TV. Aupmanyav 10:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I guess I should have numbered the questions. I am sure most people here would answer as you did, and so would I. I am just wondering how prevalent some of these beliefs I am reading about are, and what is the range of belief. --Filll 14:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, I am 100% scientific, 100% religious, and 100% hindu. There is no conflict. Aupmanyav 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And 100% atheist. Aupmanyav 06:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aupmanyav, I think your answer to the third set question two is misleading. He was not asking about your own beliefs. To clarify, there is a concept of reincarnation found in Hinduism and it is almost universal at the moment. Whether a minority of Hindus don't believe in it or whether reincarnation actually exists isn't relevant to the question. Gizza^Chat ^© 06:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dagizza is correct. However, it is not particularly important, since I think I have learned enough to hopefully avoid most of the worst pitfalls. At least, I hope so. Thanks.--Filll 06:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DaGizza, Filll, I said in the beginning that I answer for myself only. Secondly the question asks for personal views, it does not say 'What is in your view is the Hindu opinion on ..?' You are correct when you say that my view is very uncommon among hindus. The common hindu belief is that everybody is in its own cycle, humans and animals, they are not synchronized, and they are the result of their deeds in the last life or earlier ones. A good ruse to make people act according to social law, the eternal 'Dharma'. Aupmanyav 04:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention everyone

User:RyanFreisling, User:Jayrav and User:IZAK have been removing Swastikas from many of our pages and replacing them with the black Aum. All of them are Jewish and are sensitive but that is no reason whatsoever to remove teh symbol especially without consulting us. The Nazis stole many other things from Hinduism, including the name Aryan. Does that mean it should illegal for Indians to now have the name Aryan? I don't think so. The Black Aum is not Hindu anyway. The Aum has to be red or orange. In that sense, the Swastik is more of a Hindu symbol than the Black Aum. I find it quite rather rude to do such a thing without even posting a message to us. We decide whether the Swastik is holy, not them. Gizza^Chat ^© 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that changing the template without consulting the relevant project is not the proper way to go about this business.

That said, should we perhaps consider changing the template ourselves with a saffron Aum symbol used instead of the Swastika, which does have a very dark history when presented without context ? Unfortunately we cannot discuss the context in the template, unlike in the Swastika, or Hindu Iconography article - so it may be desirable to substitute the symbol.

Hopefully this will not become an issue of grandstanding from either sides and cooler heads will prevail. Thanks. Abecedare 01:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the question is not what is Holy to Hindus, but what is appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to express cultural pride but to provide information. In the majority of places where a Hindu template appears, a Swastika will not add any informative content, but is more of a decoration. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 01:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a need for a red or orange aum, I can do one in a few minutes and upload at commons. Just drop me a note in my talk page.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future discussion on the topic can take place here. Abecedare 01:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose the removal of Swastikas on the templates. As it is a symbol in Hinduism. I would oppose it if they were placed on random templates that have no conjunction with Hinduism but this is not the case. If you really want to get technical, the swastikas used by the Nazis are different from the "original" Hinduism Swastika. Such as the rotation and the dots inside the Swastika. Does anyone agree? — Arjun 02:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose too. it's a totally different symbol.--D-Boy 02:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has moved as Abece has mentioned but I agree. Jews and those affected by the Nazis should understand that the Swastikas in Nazism and Hinduism, 1) have no connection 2) look different from each other. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform people about the differences in cultures around the world. They are taking a slice out of our religion away. Gizza^Chat ^© 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The swastika is not only a symbol of Hinduism alone, but alongwith om, is shared by the entire Dharmic family. It is the sign of the deadly Shorinji Kempo (as Manji) and is found in Zen, a faith originating from Dharmic Mahayana Buddhism. It would be good if our friends understood the difference between the European version, inspired by the Dharmic it may have been, but still is used differently. _{Freedom skies| talk} 02:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Indian or Hindu, but I am stunned by this seeming example of over political correctness. The Holocaust was horrible, no question. Lots of Indians died fighting to stop it, in the largest volunteer army in World War II. But to imagine that somehow this Indian symbol is the same as the Nazi symbol and stands for the same thing? Hey I am all for sensitivity, but this seems a bit over the top to me.--Filll 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aum is a more quintessentially Hindu symbol than the swastika. But our Jewish friends should know that the users of one swastika protected and sheltered their people for 2000 years and the followers of the other took part in unspeakable atrocities.Baka man 03:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discussion has moved. But I'd like to point out here that while the standard Nazi swastika and Hindu swastika are indeed different from each other; that does not always hold true in practice. See for example: A red Nazi swastika, Non tilted Nazi swastikas, A counter-clockwise Hindu Swastika,A clockwise Hindu Swastika (in black and white), Hindu swastikas in black (alse read the accompanying text ... Abecedare 03:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Swastika and Sauwastika.Baka man 03:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Adolf Hitler's personal standard. Abecedare 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll come acros the cross too in Adolf Hitler's personal standard. Should we delete every mention of it then ? _{Freedom skies| talk} 03:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have provided a clearer context in listing the links. After the issue was raised I was just researching to find the facts, based on which one can form an informed opinion. I thought I'd list what I had found here for other editor's benefit (especially as I saw some incorrect information listed on WP:HINDU talk page and above) and then they can form their own opinion (which of course can be different from mine). I think it was Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts".

Now for my opinion: as I stated on the WP:HINDU talk page, I favour replacing the symbol from the talk-page template (i.e. something that may be placed in userspace, such as {{Hindu Links}} without sufficient context) while retaining it in mainspace templates, where it should be clear that the symbol being used is not the Nazi swastika. As one sees from this discussion too, context can be important. :-) Abecedare 03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the greek cross is has all arms of equal length, so does the cross shown here, in the Infantry batallion flag LSSAH. Opinions aside, if similarities in symbols borrowed by war criminals from ancient civilizations result in them getting banned then why wait on the Greek Cross ? If you're connecting a red/saffron Hindu Insignia with dots in every arm with one in a red background, white circle and inverted black shape then why not persuade the British government from ending the Victoria cross as it looks too much like the German Iron Cross ? _{Freedom skies| talk} 04:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol is used in Korean temples and in Taipei, You'll find it synonymous with Hinduism, from which the Dharmic family of religions originated. We use it differently than the Eupropean symbol. I would like to point out that the Swastika here predates the western one as well, and has only been used for auspicious purposes. The Dharmic religion family has yet to be associated with the persecution of Jews and our admiration of Israel is all too overt. The erasing of our religious symbols then, because the Nazi vandals did'nt know the difference or on were too little time to paint a red background, white circle and an inverted swastika to get it right, is unjustified. _{Freedom skies| talk} 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have another couple of examples for you:

The Klu Klux Klan uses crosses frequently to represent themselves (burning crosses on lawns etc). No one thought that crosses should be abolished based on this however.
The star of David was used to represent very bad things by the Nazis. Did the Jews discontinue its use afterwords?
The pink triangle was issued by the Nazis to mark those homosexuals to be executed. They have instead recaptured this symbol for their own use and are proud to display it now.
The red cross was not used in Muslim countries, and instead a red crescent was used to avoid offending Muslims. The red cross itself did not disappear in the cultures it originated in. Now the red cross and red crescent are displayed together on many materials of the Red cross and red crescent society. Neither symbol was given up by either community, although obviously the red crescent has negative meanings in some places. It was decided to live and let live and not let the past dictate censoring the others symbols.
There are synagogues and temples around the world that still have swastikas displayed for historical reasons, since they were part of the building etc before the Nazis. I saw a documentary and the Rabbis said they would not knuckle under to this Tyrant and his misuse of this symbol, that Jews were stronger and more defiant than that.
To stop using this symbol is to retire it, almost to honor it, like to stop using a players number in soccer or some other sport when they have done a superlative job. Do we want to honor this Tyrant's misuse of the symbol?
This is an encyclopedia, about knowledge and learning. And this symbol is important knowledge about another culture. Lets not censor it.
I point this out particularly knowing more Hindus died voluntarily fighting the Nazis, and to stop the Holocaust, than any other group on earth. Hindus welcomed Jews to India millenia ago. There is no animosity between Hindus and Jews here. And we should not be trying to create it with senseless censoring.--Filll 13:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Filll and others, I was happy to see that the right-handed Swastika in red stays with all its dots. Aupmanyav 03:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gizza, I agree with you. A black 'OM' is not our way. Any other warm colour, red, yellow, orange, gold, silver, or white (depending on the background). Nothing wrong with black, but tradition. Aupmanyav 17:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caste in bio- articles

Well Zora is on a crusade rid Indian bio-artciles off the caste[6]. According to her "WP should not be complicit in caste system ". I find this statement vaguely offensive, as if implying that Indian editors are being casteist. Given that she doesnt trust us "Hindutva fanatics", perhaps some of you guys could tell her, caste is used more of clan/tribe marker than anything else these days.... अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 09:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should tell her to look at the caste project that's basically dead.--D-Boy 20:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From an outsider's perspective caste is very mysterious and hard to understand. I have no idea where it came from and various details. That is why it would be good to have some information about it, but I do not know how much is here.--Filll 14:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caste is the same as the feudal system of medieval Europe and it still occurs all over the world today in a modernised form. Gizza^Chat ^© 05:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most probably caste existed with Aryans. Our counterparts, the Zorastrians, also have four castes. Take Brahmins. Basically all Aryan brahmins first settled in the Saraswati region, so are to be known as Saraswat Brahmins. Then they slowly spread over various parts of India. Those who moved to Lucknow region became Kanyakubja brahmins. Those who crosed River Sarayu became Sarayupareen. Those who went to Mithila became Maithils. Those who went as far as Bengal became Gaur Brahmins. Now if some Gaur brahmins later moved to Maharashtra, they became Gaur Saraswat Brahmins. But there already were brahmins in Maharashtra. They then got a distinguishing name, Deshastha brahmins, those who belonged to the land. Those who lived along the coast of Western India (Konkan) were known as Konkanastha brahmins. All these people developed their specific traditions, food habits, and used the local language. Therefore, marriages between different groups became mismatched. So people looked for relationships among their own groups. That is how the castes proliferated. Now time to go for bed, will continue tomorrow. Good Night. Aupmanyav 18:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Anupam... I'm partly a Konkanastha (KoBra if you like :) ).... They are thought to be descendents of 12th century Iranian immigrants to Maharashtra's west coast who later Hinduised to form upper-crust of Marathi society along with 96K Marathas! अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 22:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as Aryan, even the "eminent historians" say the Aryans only gave their language. Indian civilization is indigenous, coming with the original homo erectus that navigated their way into Akhand Bharat. On one hand we have our "Aryan civilization" and then we have Tamils who believe in a Tamil lemuria (think Sri Lanka on steroids in the middle of the Indian Oceans and atlantis, that should be a good idea). The castes proliferated with the need for division of labor, and later the British dug up manusmriti. What about us "Dravidian" Brahmins? Oh wait there are none, since we were kicked out of Tamil Nadu.Baka man 22:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baka you still buy that bullcrap? Btw are you a Swayamsevak? I have been (technically still am) one? अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not a Swayamsevak though I went to a HSS shakha once, it was boring as hell (all they do is two hours of yoga). Do define "bullcrap".Baka man 00:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amey, I do not buy the Iranian theory. Parsis came at the same time and remained separate. Baka, Had there been no Aryans, there would not have been a RigVeda. If it was division of labour only, there would have been just four castes. So to take up the thread again, there was a kingdom of Bhinnamal covering parts of Gujarat and Rajasthan, and the Brahmins there were the Srimalis. Later the Gujarat portion as occupied by muslims, and some of the brahmins moved to Rajasthan. A 100 miles from there, there was another group of brahmins, Paliwals. A 100 miles further, there were brahmins who lived in Pushkar, they are the Pushkarnas. You find all of them in Jodhpur, but they dont intermarry, safeguarding traditions and language. Similarly you have the Kumaoni, Garhwalis, Himachali, and the Kashmiri brahmin. Among Kashmiri brahmins, some took to king's service and prospered, they are known as Karkuns. There were others who continued with conducting ceremonies, they are Gurus. They generally don't intermarry. This is not the only way brahmins were divided in castes. Ayyars and Ayyangars separated because of their chief deity, Shiva or Krishna (please note that I do not have detailed knowledge of things in South India). Or their gurus Sri Vaishnavas following Ramanujacharya, Madhvas following Madhvacharya. Mishras in UP were custodians of one particular recension of the Vedas. Then there were indigenous priests and shamans, who also might have been included among the brahmins, the Vaidyas of Bengal and the Ojhas of Gujarat (very roughly, without being controversial). Then there were those who lectured in religious congregations, they are the Vyasas. Similar grouping and stratification took place in all varnas. Kshatriyas became Suryavanshis, Chandravanshis, Agnivanshis. Among the traders we had the Gandhis (perfumes), Sonis (gold workers), Telis (oil expellers), Nais (barbers), Darjis (dress makers). At an even lower level we had Dhobies (washermen), Kumhars (potmakers), Chamars (leather workers), and so on. Different languages, different regions, different professions, different faiths, all combined to give us (only God knows how many!) all these castes. Aupmanyav

Parsis came at the same time: you may wish to read the Parsi article ... Abecedare 05:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were saying that Parsis came at the same time as the "aryans", but re-reading your comment I am not sure if that is what you meant. Anyway, I do agree with the general principal you outlined for the splitting of castes (at least as a partial explanation; there may have been other factors involved). Abecedare 05:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Abecedare, Anupamav was discussing origins of Chitpawan Brahmins. Anyways Anupam, but I read somewhere that Chitpawans were descended from Iranian Jewish immigrants. My dad has green eyes! Chitpawans easily stand out amongst other Marathis. Still... Caste origins are not my forte really. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 08:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My error entirely in understanding. I lost the thread at some point. pun intended. :-) Abecedare

@Baka: You see this is one problem with Hindutvadis. I mean its senseless getting into these Indo-Aryan-civ-is-indigenous... Well it simply doesnt matter... Aryans enetered India 3500 years ago, if 3500 of continuous existence in one place doesnt make one qualify for 'indigenous' tag then i dont know what does... I ofcourse understand how you fell being a TamBram with all the Periyarites calling you an 'outsider....

As for HSS I have attended Prathamic Varg in Manchester. Though i gave up Hindutva over two years ago, i'm still required to show up my face at shakas every now and then. ... अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 08:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parsi article says three dates - 936 CE, 765 CE and 716 CE, that is why I did not pay much attention to the 12th century theory. By 12th century Iran was nearly totally muslim. Chitpawans, your blue eyes come from Central Asia (Beg excuse from the Aryans were indigenous lobby) just as the blue eyes of Kashmiris are. Moreover, foreigners and followers of another faith would not have been accepted so quickly. It takes millenia. Many Parsis also came, see Indo-Parthians, Western Kshatrapas, Indo-Sassanians. Aupmanyav 13:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy moley... Anumpamji do have a look at Chitpavan Konkanastha Brahmins... Its a horrible mess.

Funniest stuff: How to tell a Chitpavan

A typical Chitpavan is usually fair of complexion, has a sharp nose and steel-grey eyes. He can be called handsome. Nanasaheb Peshwa (18th century), from a portrait that is available may be called best specimen of Chitpavan manhood. Nanasaheb's son Vishwasrao, when 18, was killed in the Third Battle of Panipat (1761). Kashiraj has described him as the most handsome among the Marathas

Hey! If all Chitpavans are said to be handsome how come I'm so pathetic with girls? Aww..well all that Maratha and Sindhi blood seems to have diluted me... Thats not fair... I missed out on Chitpavan manhood genes :( अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 14:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, pure racial blood is fiction. Aupmanyav 16:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Division of labor would not result in four castes, it would result in a multitude. Read up on guilds in europe. In China and Japan they had rigid systems as well as quasi-untouchables (called burakumin in Japan). A merger of the two systems is highly plausible judging by the fact that India was oppressed under foreign rule for over 1200 years. Aup the reason people have green eyes or mongoloid features is becasue scythians, persians, greeks, etc came to India at various times and intermarried with people. Tashkent was known at the times of the Mahabharat, Mt Kailash is in present day China, Java-dwipa is in Indonesia, as is Mt. Meru. If you read up on Aryan Migration Theory you will see that not even the biblical literalist and Marxists even belive the people invaded india. They only believe that there was exchange of languages. Present consensus accepts "an indigenous origin of Indian civilization". Btw, Ambroodey, "Hindutva - RSS/HSS/VHP style" is not my game and never has been. I am hardly religious though culturally Hindu.Baka man 01:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would accept coming of all other people but not of Aryans! OK, we have a honest difference of opinion. The Indian curry hardly shows what all spices have been put in. However I have accepted various reasons causing the proliferation of castes and accept your views regarding the chinese and japanese societies. I suppose, the same happened in the western societies, as indicated by family names as Waterman, Shoemaker, Gardener, Butcher, Miller, etc. Aupmanyav 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know that the discussion came to a fruition.Baka man 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare, I noticed a post by you asking if 'Parsis came at the same time'. Yes, Parsis came at the same time, some 5000 years ago, but at that time they came as Aryans. Avesta, as you know, calls Hapta-Hendu as their fifteenth homeland. Later some of the Aryans went to their sixteenth homeland, Rangha (?). It was among these people that Zarathrushta was born and established the Zoroastrian religion. They were then known as Parsis. Aupmanyav 16:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Meatpuppetry_and_tag-team_edit-warring. They tried to claim Panini and Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar as Pakistani.Baka man 19:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, see Talk:History of India to see the whole of Punjab and Sindh's history becoming the history of "Ancient Pakistan". Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding me. What the heck? I am not Indian and even *I* know that is not true. Good heavens.--Filll 05:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I am slightly biased. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar is probably one of the 5 most brilliant physicists of the last 100 years, easily. And I am a physicist. So I guess I have a slight advantage. but Chandrasekhar was an incredible scientist, there is no doubt about it.--Filll 05:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind if the Pakistani's claim Panini, He was a resident of Village Salutara (Modern Lahur), Kurram Agency, Federally Administered Tribal Area (http://groups.msn.com/TheSub-Continent, 34.48.00 N, 71.29.04 E, elev. 4397 ft., viewed from alt. 9489 ft, see the small green depression in the front flank of the mountain, perhaps the mountain was greener in Panini's time, the yellow line in the picture is the Afghan border, presently it is a stronghold of Taliban and perhaps the hideout of Osama bin Laden, how times change?). He is theirs. Of course, the ancient history of Punjab and Sindh is the Ancient history of Pakistan. Would not you give the Pakistanis their share of the shared ancient history? Aupmanyav 06:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem in their adding Wikiproject Pakistan banner, and it would be great if that encourages them to help improve the article. deeptrivia (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can claim Parvez Musharraf by the same standard, also Iqbal and Faiz, even Jinnah. Aupmanyav 07:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha... you're right. I agree it's not correct that Panini was a Pakistani, but my point was, let their ego be satisfied if it leads to an improvement in the article..or even if it prevents disruptions of normal work. Who cares about a template on a talk page. deeptrivia (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-uh Deep, the point is to be accurate and verifiable not giving up to an army of trolls. Aupmanyav, Chandrasekhar was an Iyer Tamil Brahmin whos dad merely happened to have a job in Lahore at the time. Attock, Aupmanyav by your own cartography is in Afghanistan, and rightly belongs in Afghan history as well, but certain users dont agree. I could care less if he wasnt marked as Indian and only as Afghan, but definitely not of an artificial construct created in 1947. What we do know or can deduce is that he most probably lived for time in India (Akhand Bharat) and he most probably was Pathan.Baka man 22:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Chandrasekhar have the WP:Hinduism tag ? I thought that it was only for people who did something in the field of relegion and not every Hindu. Category:WikiProject Hinduism articles too seems mostly to take this line. I agree with deeptrivia above, but I also suspect that the flag hoisters may never come back to improve the article. Tintin (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured, they would come back to destroy the article. There are a legion of Saudi-funded specially trained operatives back there in Pakistani madarsas. Aupmanyav 05:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, just like the way Hindu users receive direct funding in the millions from the BJP to edit Wikipedia articles to pro-Hindu biases? lol. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, where's my dough ??? I am ready to redouble my efforts :-) Abecedare 05:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhh..... Nobleeagle you've let the cat out of the bag! As for your handouts Abecedare, sorry we dont employ Scousers or Scots ... HSS UK has stricly rules about that! अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 09:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (The supreme leader of Hindutva cabal at Wikipedia)[reply]

BJP is broke these days. Wait for a few years when it comes back. Aupmanyav 13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aupmanyavji, no one should need any political party to be able to express one's views on Hinduism. One should just ignore any reference to BJP and focus on the views. NobleEagle [sic], soar like an eagle. I, for one, expect that as a Hindu, you would not object to any pro-Hindu bias. If an article on Hinduism shows the biases and prejudices of us Hindus, there is nothing wrong with it. Denying them would be wrong.Kanchanamala 14:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Om shape symbolism

Please see the article mantra. I would not comment on it anymore, but this is unbelievable. There's a section that describes a dubious theory for the meaning of the Devanagari symbol for Aum, and my request that it be verified with additional sources has led to all kinds of misunderstandings. Could someone please do something? Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to find what exactly you were pointing at. A symbol can be interpreted in many ways, the upper semicircle this, the lower semicircle that, and the bindu the absolute. I can see Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh, and Brahman in the symbol. Does it make any difference? Aupmanyav 07:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. But aren't these one's personal interpretations. They could be notable only if held by a majority or a significant minority. The article sounds as if the Aum symbol was designed keeping this in mind, while the symbol clearly comes from merging the devanagari "अ" (A) "ऊ" (U) and "ँ" (M) characters and not by joining semicircles and dots symbolizing various things. Besides the devanagari symbol, we have symbols in various languages, like the Tamil symbol on right (and Tibetan, Chinese, Gurmukhi, etc). The theory of semicircles is elegant, but is not given by a scholar or a religious leader, but a Nitin Kumar, an employee of an online store [7]. Aum derives its importance from the three syllables, the vibrations they generate, not its notation used to denote it in Devanagari script (which is less than 800 years old.) deeptrivia (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Read also the introduction of the very same article, which is very well written. It mentions how mantras like Aum are all about sound symbolism. It also says:

For many cultures it is the written letters that have power -- the Hebrew Kabbalah for instance, or the Anglo-Saxon Runes. Letters can have an oracular function even. But in India special conditions applied that meant that writing was very definitely inferior to the spoken word."

I see this semicircle hypothesis in direct contradiction of all this. deeptrivia (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deeptrivia, I did not say all that I wanted to say in my last post as I had to go somewhere. I am a pan-Indian Indian, that means that whether fair or dark, I consider all Indians as my people, whether one thinks that they are Aryans or whether they think they only are the indigenes, they are all my people, whether Sanskrit, Hindi, Bengali, Telugu, or Tamil, they are my languages. It is just that my mother is Hindi, but Tamil is my maasi (mother's sister), no less than my mother. I fully understand what you say, 'OM' would be written differently in all languages, but it still remain the hindu symbol. 'OM' certainly does not have to be written as in Devanagari. It is again, the first among equals principle. The hindi 'OM' is the best known. As for the semicircles, it is trivia, even if one person's view. Keep it or remove it if other editors agree. Aupmanyav 10:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Aupmanyav, the point of showing these languages is only that Aum (like any other sound symbol) does not derive its importance from its Devanagari symbol, at least not directly. The Devanagari symbol becomes important only in that it represents the syllable Aum. I am a North Indian, Hindi is my native language, and I am not familiar with any Indian script other than Devanagari. The only point is, if the semicircle interpretation is one (or a handful) non-notable person's view it should definitely be out of wikipedia without delay. deeptrivia (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though the visual representation of Aum is by far secondary to the sound, I think it has developed its own significance. One title of Ganesh is "Omkara" (lit. the body of an Aum) I have seen pictures where Ganesh appears in a position that resembles the visual Devanagari symbol Aum. These are some examples on the internet but not all good ones [8] [9] [10]. I have seen better. Gizza^Chat ^© 00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Counter-vandalism unit

anyone check this out?--D-Boy 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles added haven't been vandalised. They may have a strong POV but counter-POV is different from counter-vandalism. Gizza^Chat ^© 04:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavani Nama Sahasra Stuti

Namaste, fellow editors. I realized after poking around wikipedia and the internet that the Bhavaninamasahasrastutih has very little information present, and have since added a little about it on the sahasranama article. This may be because mostly only we kashmiris among other tantrikas use it. I have an old book by Kashmiri Pandit Jankinath Kaul (Kamal) which provides in great detail the meaning of each of the 1000 names, however, it also has the full sanskrit text, which based on my findings is rare, and I would like to preserve this by at the very least transliterating it into IAST, and putting it here somewhere.

I have some questions regarding this, however: 1) as this is an ancient sastra, it is my understanding that the sanskrit text is not under any copyright, and would be legal for me to provide, in its entirety (without the elaborate work of Shri Kamalji) 2) where is the appropriate place to put this transliteration when I am finished with it? i.e., is it ok to just create an article, "Bhavani Nama Sahasra Stuti" and just place my transliteration there, or is there a more appropriate wikimedia project where it should be? 3) I prefer IAST myself, but if there is a more accurate or preferable transliteration scheme / format that i should follow please do tell me.

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 05:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for adding texts. There is an associated Wikimedia project called Wikisource. That is the place where it has to be put. The Wikipedia page can only be about the Bhavaninamasahasrastutih. It can't have the text itself. On the Sanskrit Wikipedia, somebody added the four Vedas to their respective pages and it was moved to Wikisource. Another example of a text that needs to be moved is the Hanuman Chalisa. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gizzaji, that was pretty much what I was thinking about. Also, am I correct in assuming it is fine to transliterate intact portions, if it is from sastra? ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 05:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Hinduism

...I have updated this portal a little bit by adding a "related portal" box at the bottom and added a new Selected article, picture, and person. Now I know that there is the Selected Text but is that necessary as there will be so much and then we can not update it. Basically I am asking if any one out there would be willing to help update the Portal about every week in the given areas of it. As it is never really updated as the selected article was there since December 2005 :O. Cheers and any help would be very much appreciated. Arjun 04:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to get articles on auto-rotation. I know some of the other portals do this, although I'm too new at portals to have ever really done it myself yet. If you want to do that, please contact me directly and I can try to see what I can do. Badbilltucker 14:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to along with deeptrivia update the Hinduism Portal but it got boring doing it manually. I think you will get bored too if we don't get the articles on auto-rotation. Gizza^Chat ^© 00:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have an editor willing to create an auto-rotation. Arjun 04:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article tagged as needing expert attention

Sai Baba of Shirdi has been tagged as requiring expert attention. Any such assistance in improving this article would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism Festivals

Can someone please list all the Hinduism Festivals that can be found in January and Early February...along with date? I am asking so I can update the Hinduism portal further. So if any one can it would be so... helpful. Thanks Arjun 21:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some websites [11], [12], [13], [14] (Best one - goes beyond 2007 up to 2031!) Note the Hindu calendar does not correspond with the Gregorian. I will update the list manually for the time being. Could there be a way to make a program which adds the five closest festivals to the list? I have no idea how it will work even if it can work! And how many should we put? 3-5? Gizza^Chat ^© 23:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great those are excellent links! Thank you so much. Arjun 23:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu mathematics

Perhaps you guys can add more to that page. Also check out this discussion.Baka man 22:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should find material on Bhaaskara-Lilavati, Aryabhata, and Varaahamihira to start with.Kanchanamala 14:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devadasi

An editor, unsurprisingly a Britisher, User:Jezhumble keeps making tendentious edits to it, restoring a bogus sentence edited there by an anonymous vandal [16] which I neutralized thus[17]. On the talk page, he goes on lengthy diatribes about how all Hindu women are prostitutes or something [18] and bringing up everything from Gujarat riots to Narendra Modi to bash Hindus.I grow increasingly weary of telling him to stop Disrupting wikipedia to make a point and ask the intervention of more knowledgable editors regarding Devdasis into this little soiree. Rumpelstiltskin223 09:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a South Indian practice, which I don't have too much familiarity with. Gizza^Chat ^© 23:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devadasi... or Jogini is a pre-dominantly South Indian practise. Yet there are instances of it happening in places as north as Gwalior. Anyways, legally it is banned but i've seen Devadasis with my very own eyes in Pandharpur a south Maharashtrian pilgrimage center which borders K'taka. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 12:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saints vs Gurus

Can somebody clarify the criteria for inclusion in these categories? I'm confused. --Nemonoman 00:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:Hindu saints]] 
[[Category:Hindu gurus]]

Replied on his talk page [19]. The line is quite blurred in osme instances.Baka man 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakasuprman wrote: A guru is one who teaches a large number of people. A saint would be someone that devoted their life to serving people/preaching/ or serving a higher power. The cats are in some disarray though.

That's a definition...I'm asking for the criteria for inclusion. Is Sai Baba of Shirdi a Hindu Saint? Or a Hindu Guru? How about Vyasa? How is one distinguish those who belong in the category from those who don't. Or does anything go?--Nemonoman 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the actual truth, anything goes. I prune the cats from time to time but if you're unsure just mark it in Category:Hindu religious figures.Baka man 23:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let us discuss this. A person considered a hindu saint should at least be a hindu. Hindus accept nine avataras of Vishnu and the tenth would come 427,000 years later. So no such saint should claim to be a avatara. If the person considers himself to be Brahman, then he should accept the divinity of others just like Sankara who fell down at the feet of chandala. Aupmanyav 14:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still looking for some sort of guidelines?????--Nemonoman 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything goes as long as they're Hindu lol. Those cats are hard to draw lines between, I trust you can define for yourself what a saint and a guru are. A "guideline" for guru would be they had to be a teacher of some kind.Baka man 03:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint is one of those stupid Christian words that has infiltrated the Hindu technical vocabulary, like "salvation" for Moksha and "monk" for sannyasi. I think saint is used for Sant but it is a false cognate. So it that way, the Wiki-page Sant Mat should give an idea of what a Hindu "saint" is. Personally, I think Hindu saints should be deleted and everything there should be re-located to Hindu gurus or at least change the name to Hindu Sants. Gizza^Chat ^© 03:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article suggests a strong relationship to Bhakti, particularly to the Bhakti movements of the last several centuries. Is that a criterion?

Is being worshipped a good criterion for being Hindu Saint? Like showing up in holy pictures, or witht images on Puja tables, for example??

Would Vivekananda, for example, qualify as a Hindu saint? As a Hindu guru? What about Sri Aurobindo?

As well-meaning (and somewhat confused) editor, I certainly begin to appreciate the Roman Catholic Church, with its well-defined roster of saints, identifiable canonization process, etc. Even if some of the saints (like Saint Christopher) were entirely fictional, at least they were well defined!!--Nemonoman 20:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint is the correct english translation for sant, it shouldnt be deleted.Baka man 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakta (Sant-a virtuous person) and Acharya are two different things. It is not necessary for the first to teach, like Narsi Bhagat. An Acharya teaches and writes like Sankara. Of course, he also is a sant. In hinduism, a sant is accepted by public opinion. Aupmanyav 03:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sant is used in some modern Indian languages while referring to certain eminent spititual Hindus as in Sant Tukaram in Marathi and Sant Tulsidas in Hindi. It is not advisable to translate it as Saint in English which is a loaded Christian word. guru, when referred to a person, means one who gives individual instruction to a seeker of secular or spiritual knowledge. bhakta means a devoted person, usually devoted to God. An aacaarya is a person who acts as a guide to his/her followers regarding their conduct usually in spiritual matters. Nemonoman, come back home.Kanchanamala 15:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>>Nemonoman, come back home.<<. Not sure that would help...Home is New Jersey.--Nemonoman 15:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omnipotence article

On wikipedia there is an article on Omnipotence. I have been trying to put in aspects of other religions into this article, since the article is now mostly (completely) western and christian oriented, edit about ather religions are not edited but simply removed, since I can't place any good references on the matter. As I recall Shiva is seen as omnipotent by Shaivism, Vishnu in Vaishnavism (read this in the Gita) and Shakti in Shaktism. I have to little knowledge on this to place any accurate references, hence my calling here, to also give this aricle an eastern point of view. Teardrop onthefire 15:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva

Dear All - the Shiva article is in need of much improvement. I don't feel it is really doing Shiva much justice in it's present state - giving a number of unsourced and conflicting opinions. Please could anyone with a detailed knowledge of Lord Shiva please take a look. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 22:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas! We may have to bring our fellow Shaivite to help the article, Saiva Sujit. The "Origin Theories" is mostly Original Research so we might as well remove that completely. According to WP:TRIV, the pop culture section can go. The list of names will be suited on another page (Perhaps we should create a policy, all list of names for gods/goddesses are split with a link to suffice, many of them have 1000 names! Once we split them we can try for WP:FL) The "forms" section needs a lot of cleanup. Most Shaivite sects don't believe in the concept of avatars as in other denominations, at least in the same way. I think we need general standard format for Hindu deities, the most prominent ones with a slightly refined version. Thanks for bringing that up Gouranga! Gizza^Chat ^© 11:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Turkey

if anyone cares, it's on speedy delete.--D-Boy 01:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All we need is to find some info on it and recreate. And no Dboy no one cares, remember us "Hindutva" people are extreme (though I am not religious).Baka man 23:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwamedha

I feel that the article focusses too much on allegations of bestiality and necrophilia and not enough perspectives are offered to the fact that it may be allegorical rather than actual.If somebody has some knowledge regarding this then please contribute to the article. At present, the main contributors to the article may be biased. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'ashwa' in 'ashwa-medha mahaa-yajna' does not mean a horse. What does it mean? For starters, it is a Vedic term, a technical term in the Vedas.Kanchanamala 14:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THERE HAVE been repeated accusations in the Hinduism related pages about barbarity of killing of a horse in the Aswamedha Yagna by anti-hindu or uninformed people. I want to put it down for ever. I would keep posting from the Vedas, Brahmanas, Aranyaks, Upanishads. All quotes will be from www.sacred-texts.com. I do not think anybody can doubt the impartiality of the above site. Here is my first installment:

7. He desired, 'May this (body) of mine be sacrificially pure: may I thereby be possessed of a self!' Thereupon the horse (asva) was produced; and because that which was swelling (asvat) became pure (medhya) therefore the name Asvamedha (belongs to that sacrifice). He, indeed, knows the Asvamedha who thus knows him.
8. He bethought him of leaving it unrestrained. At the end of a year he slaughtered it for his own self, and made over the (sacrificial) animals to the deities: therefore they slaughter the consecrated (victim) as one that, in its nature as Pragâpati, represents all the deities. But the Asvamedha, in truth, is he that shines yonder (the sun), and the year is his body. The Arka is this Fire, and these worlds are his bodies. These two are the Arka and Asvamedha; but these, indeed, become again one deity, to wit, Death. And, verily, whosoever knows this, conquers recurrent Death, and Death has no hold on him: Death is his own self; he attains all life, and becomes one of those deities.

Shatapatha Brahmana - 5th Brahmana (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe43/sbe4375.htm)

Verse 8 means Asvamedha is Sun, large (asvat) and pure (medhya). Aupmanyav 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Yajna a sacrifice: The problem has its origin in translating the word Yajna into sacrifice. People the world over and especially those of the Abrahamic religions understand sacrifice only as killing of an animal, which is not hindism's fault. Yaj, is to give. It should have been ceremony. And at the end of the ceremony the Yajamana gives gifts to Brahmins, amount was not decided in advance, it was done according to the custom of the day, it was not in the form of a fee. This is how it is generally done even today. If the brahmin gets more than his expectations, it is his luck; if he gets less, he would not complain. Normally the brahmin was a hereditary priest to the family and knew what would be given. It is a brahmin's good luck if his yajamanas had prospered and could give more. Some brahmins may not be that lucky and may be serving poor yajamanas. Aupmanyav 05:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People need to understand that Medha is not Vadha (killing) or Vedha (piercing). Medha is (I suppose) attainment. This again is a problem of translation. Aupmanyav 06:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4 He who declares his wish to me, to Asvamedha, to the Prince,
Pays him who with his verse seeks gain, gives power to him who keeps the Law.
5 From whom a hundred oxen, all of speckled hue, delight my heart,
The gifts of Asvamedha, like thrice-mingled draughts of Soma juice.
6 To Asvamedha who bestows a hundred gifts grant hero power,
O Indra-Agni! lofty rule like the unwasting Sun in heaven.
(RV 5.27.4/5/6)

Aswamedha is Indra-Agni. Aupmanyav 07:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15 Two brown-hued steeds, Indrota's gift, two bays from Rksa's son were mine,
From Asvamedha's son two red.
16 From Atithigva good car-steeds; from Arksa rein-obeying steeds,
From Asvamedha beauteous ones.

Here Asvamedha is the name of a person. Aupmanyav 08:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16. Now, prior to the (chanting of the) Bahishpavamâna, they (the assistants of the Adhvaryu) bring up the horse, after cleansing it; and with it they glide along for the Pavamâna: the mystic import of this has been explained 1. When the Bahishpavamâna has been chanted, they make the horse step on the place of chanting: if it sniffs, or turns away, let him know that his sacrifice is successful. Having led up that (horse), the Adhvaryu says, 'Hotri, sing praises!' and the Hotri sings its praises 2 with eleven (verses, Rig-veda I, 163, 1-11)-- Shatapatha Brahmana, Fifth Adhyaya, First Brahmana, (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44106.htm)

'if it sniffs, or turns away, let him know that his sacrifice is successful.' That is all it meant to have an Asvamedha yagna (of course, followed by gifts to brahmins). Any doubts now? I have a total of 59 references. Aupmanyav 09:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I invite editors to read exactly why soma-sacrifices of which Asvamedha was one were held. (Page 190 onwards at http://www.vaidilute.com/books/tilak/tilak-08.html)

"The hundred sacrifices, which are regarded as constituting the essence of Indraship in the Purâṇas, are there said to be the Ashvamedha sacrifices and it may, at the outset, be urged that the shata-râtra sacrifice mentioned in the sacrificial works is not an Ashvamedha sacrifice. But the distinction is neither important, nor material. The Ashvamedha sacrifice is a Soma sacrifice and is described in the sacrificial works along with the night-sacrifices. In the Taittirîya Saṁhitâ (VII, 2, 11) a hundred offerings of food to be made in the Ashvamedha sacrifice are mentioned, and the Taittirîya Brâhmaṇa (III, 8, 15, 1) states that Prajâpati obtained these offerings “during the night,” and consequently they are called Râtri-homas. The duration of the Ashvamedha sacrifice is again not fixed, inasmuch as it depends upon the return of the horse and in the Ṛig-Veda (I, 163, 1) the sacrificial horse is identified with the sun moving in waters. The return of the sacrificial horse may, therefore, be taken to symbolize the return of the sun after the long night and a close resemblance between the Ashvamedha and the night-sacrifices, which were performed to enable Indra to fight with Vala and rescue the dawn and the sun from his clutches, may thus be taken as established.

At any rate, we need not be surprised if the Shata-râtra Soma sacrifice appears in the form of a hundred Ashvamedha sacrifices in the Purâṇas. The tradition is substantially the same in either case and when it can be so easily and naturally explained on the Arctic theory, it would not be reasonable to set it aside and hold that the writers of the Purâṇas created it by misinterpreting the word Shata-kratu occurring in the Vedas." B.G.Tilak, 'Arctic Home in Vedas' (http://www.vaidilute.com/books/tilak/tilak-08.html) Aupmanyav 06:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asvamedha is taken generally as an exercise of suezreinty in later puranas and literature, but it was not at all like that in the Vedas. Samudragupta's Asvamedha was not of the Vedas. Aupmanyav 06:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vibhuti ashes are ....

Can someone involved in the project help me with the question posted at Talk:Vibhuti? Thanks! --Knulclunk 14:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When one views Shiva[Naaraayana] as a 'vibhuti' (God who has 'specially become') as possessing the ability of 'animaa', 'laghimaa', 'praapti', 'praakaamya', 'mahimaa', 'ishitaa', 'vashitaa', and 'kaamaavasaayita' [in 'srishti' (creation)], one traditionally wears ashes on the forehead as Shiva's (God's) blessings.Kanchanamala 15:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchanamala, after seeing the link, I don't think that this is what he was asking. He was curious about the composition of the vibhuti. Knulclunk, vibhuti is created from the ashes of a havan, which includes many "ingredients" like sandalwood, etc. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 16:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at "saffron"(color) page and it says it is a color of buddhists. I want to edit this page and include this in the preview of project Hinduism. Please give your views. Also I want to know of the places that I can start my research. If you have ideas please post them on my talk page.--Khammam 16:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)--Khammam 05:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-cremation in Hinduism

Moved from Talk:Hinduism

Most Hindus are cremated, but I keep running into contradictory comments regarding the exceptions: sources say variously that children under 5, pregnant women, those who died accidentally, sanyasis and eunuchs are not cremated, but are instead weighed with rocks and cast into a river (preferably the Ganga). What's the real scoop? Jpatokal 14:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jpatokal, what you said sounds correct. Within Hinduism, religious leaders such as sannyasis are often buried in salt with mausolea-like structures built over them which are called are called Samadhis - referring to the belief that they have not 'died' in the common sense of the term (i.e to be re-born) and are instead merely carrying on their samadhi (perfectional meditation) elsewhere in existence. I know very little about the other exceptions you mentioned, but do know it is also common practice to place bodies into holy rivers such as the Ganges where cremation is innapropriate, or as an alternative. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC) (copied from own Talk page by Jpatokal 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The cremation ritual is done to ease the soul into the next life. When the gross form perishes, the soul lingers directly above, though the astral connection is torn. By burning the physical body, the can easily understand what has happened and what needs to be done. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but I am interested in why some bodies are not cremated? Jpatokal 09:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only those who are not traveling to their next life are not cremated, jivamuktas do not expect to live again, and do not wish to be cremated. also, in some cases, when a child dies young, some may choose not to cremate immediately or perform some other ritual in hopes of bringing the child back into the family in another form. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 19:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why are there so many unburned corpses in the Ganges, including women and children? Are these mostly people who could not afford to be cremated? Jpatokal 14:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nayanar

There are now articles on every nayanar saint on hindi wiki. See hi:श्रेणी:नायनमार. Perhaps one day it will be 63 nirvaachit lekh (featured articles).Kingrom 03:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Vishnu article

Some one is vandalizing the article of Vishnu regularly. I am new and not experienced to stop it. Please help----Khammam 09:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nammalvar contents

does "It is better to make a distinction between traditional scholars and academic, or critical, scholars. The academy does not own the term scholar, which does carry some prestige. In the politics of representation, traditional scholars want to be identified as such, not excluded from "scholarship"." really belong in a wiki article about a person? Mythri achar 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

watchlist

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Babri Mosque should be watchlisted, interestingly one user and a sock have violated WP:LIBEL against the organization.Baka man 05:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu scriptures Template

The Template:Hindu scriptures is becoming increasingly bloated (compare this version less than a month back, and the current one; especially the "Other scriptures" section). Can we please arrive at a consensus as to:

Decide what scriptures to include, so that the template doesn't turn into a list article on its own ? Perhaps it would be good to create List of Hindu scriptures (if one does not already existunder another name) where all possible articles can be listed. Then the template only needs to list "major" scriptures and provide a link to the list article.
Using IAST or standard transliterations in the template. Currently it is a hodgepodge, with most entries in Roman script, but some in IAST.

Any comments/suggestions ? Abecedare 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these ideas. Regarding IAST, you know that I favor it. The reason is that I believe that if Wiki is ever to have any credibility with academics it must use IAST. If someone feels differently I hope they will share their thinking so we can dialog about this. Regarding length, it is much too long. Who is the reader expected to be? If it is someone who is a beginner we need to give them a simple menu that takes them to greater detail elsewhere. If it is a person with more experiece they do not need the detail anyway. A small problem may arise with scriptures that are not easy to classify. For example, the sahasranamas are all devotional in nature but they are drawn from a range of different scriptural classes. And then we have the lesser known things such as the Ganapati Atharvashirsa which purports to be an Upanishad but which is not recognized as such by all authorities. We have so many scriptures of different types it is like classifying butterflies. I suppose someone has done it, but when you find one in a field the average person may not care much about the name in Latin. Buddhipriya 07:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since IAST came up, the template is also a good place to ask about how to handle blocks of text that are in IAST that are more than single words. For example see the page for Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu which has some wonderful quotations. Should these be contained inside the IAST template, e.g. {{IAST|sarvajñaḥ}} even though they are full paragraphs? If the answer is yes, how do we deal with line breaks, etc? Just put IAST template on each line? Does this affect the template design? Just wondering. Buddhipriya 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Buddhists have been working on a multilingual translation template at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Buddhism#Non-English_languages that some of you may want to contribute to. I have been encouraging the use of IAST with those folks. If they figure this out perhaps we can use the same template for translations. Buddhipriya 20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discussion there may be worth keeping an eye on. My personal opinion is that we should keep IAST etc out of templates, links etc while providing them in the relevant article lead itself. Why frighten away interested (lay) readers right at the doorstep, by ostentatious display of scholarship ? Of course, this would not be the standard adopted by academic publications, which are aimed at a different, more specialized readership. Abecedare 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new article Bibliography of Hindu scriptures where we can list all the Hindu religious texts and related terminology as well as relevant religious scholars. After this list is in a better shape I propose to move some of the "Other scriptures" entries from the template, and add a link to this bibliography instead. Your help in filling out the article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Abecedare 20:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have in mind to include specific texts, for example Skanda Purana in addition to the more general Puranas? And would commentraries by "reasonably" notable Swamis etc. be included? (eg. Bhagavad Gita As It Is and Living with Siva by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami) Gizza^Chat ^© 06:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the first question, the answer is yes : this would be the proper place to list all the puranas, upapuranas, vedas, vedangas etc.

On the second question, I am not certain yet ! I think the current entries make sense, but I can see the potential of the article becoming a zoo listing every edition and translation of every text related to Hinduism. Any suggestions on how to avoid this ?

Most of the current entries in the article have been copied from Glossary of terms in Hinduism and any help in expanding the list is very welcome ! Abecedare 07:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this interesting article. I am not sure if listing all the individual scriptures by name here is a good idea, because there are a huge number of them. For example, Bhattacharyya's History of the Tantric Religion includes a survey of the tantric literature which alone probably has a couple of hundred items listed if you were to include all the lesser-known ones. He mentions that other lists of these works give 102 Ganapatya tantras alone. The largest group is Saiva tantras, with 402 different ones. Similar problems exist for the other categories. So some sort of winnowing or hierarchical structure seems called for. Buddhipriya 07:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the Glossary of terms in Hinduism for the first time and that is clearly a useful page. Not to be too much of a crank about IAST, I noticed that the article was inconsistent in its use of transliterations, doing it one way or another for various words. Trying to see it as as the average reader might, I think the Devanagari would be more off-putting than IAST. What if the page were standardized to use simplified English as the first term listed, with an IAST version in parentheses, omitting the Devenagari entirely? Since IAST is a lossless method for transliterating Devanagari there would be no loss of information for the expert, but a more comprehensible script for the English reader? Or would that be an "ostentatious display of scholarship"? :)

For example, the entry that now reads: "Āchārya (आचार्य): Teacher or Guru." would instead read: "Acharya (Āchārya): Teacher or Guru." Buddhipriya 07:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing all the Devanagari and having IAST in brackets as you suggested. The Devanagari form of each name can be seen if you click on any of the terms as well. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support that proposal too for both the bibliography and the glossary articles.

As for Buddhipriya's point on the potentially large number of scriptures: how about restricting the entries to only those scriptures that have a dedicated (non-stub) wikipedia article ? Abecedare 08:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking... If there is no Wiki article for it, why list it? Buddhipriya 08:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and if someone volunteers to write 402 articles on the Saiva Tantras, I'll personally fill in the bibliographical entries :-) Abecedare 08:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we really wanted to go for an ostentatious display of scholarship for the glossary we could follow the practice of some of the academic texts, which often have the indexes set up in IAST, using the alphabetical sort order of the Devanagari alphabet. That effectively guarantees that the English reader will never be able to find anything at all. Just a suggestion. Buddhipriya 08:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Glossary of terms in Hinduism keep the nagari.Baka man 02:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam-Whitelist

Hi yall. Over at the spam whitelist we received a request for a page relating to Hinduism. I have a fairly good grasp of the larger issues involved, but in trying to evaluate the page I'm way out of my depth.

The Request can be found here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#bharatatatparyanirnaya.122mb.com. Any further insight would be appreciated. Basically I'm trying to figure out if the site contains reliable information and if the commentary provided would be accepted as reliable. Thanks! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monotheism

Could somebody with knowledge on the subject check out Monotheism for hinduism claims on the suject stated and adding references for unreferenced claim.

Sri Anandamoyi Ma

The article on Sri Anandamoyi Ma is in serious shambles. Help wanted. Aditya Kabir 16:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input regarding IAST usage

I also noticed that the category for "Articles containing IAST" just disappeared, apparently with no input on the decision by editors of articles that use Indic text. I am wondering if Template:IAST will be next, as there is ongoing confusion about the difference between the role of the IAST tag and the Unicode tag.

There are two different issues in play. One is to clarify what the Template:IAST actually does, which in my view is to specify which of several different romanization methods is being used for Devanagai, as opposed to the role of the Unicode tag to specify an implementation method for IAST glyphs. Editors who do not work with Sanskrit may not understand that the purpose of the IAST tag is to define a romanization system, and therefore tend to reflexively replace IAST tags with Unicode tags, which is quite understandable, but results in potential confusion on what a word actually is. As I am sure editors here are well aware, there are several different methods for romanizing the Devanagari writing system. See: Devanagari transliteration. Use of the IAST tag defines which of the transliteration methods is being used. For example, the word for "self" in Devanagai is आत्मन् which is transliterated into English using IAST as ātman (with a diacritical character ā to indicate the long आ). The Harvard-Kyoto method of transliteration would write "Atman" (with a capital A to indicate the long आ). The ITRANS method of transliteration would write either "Atman" (with a capital A) or "aatman" (with two lower-case a characters). By using the IAST tag the reader can determine which of these variant romanizations is being used.

The second issue is when IAST should be included in articles. I have moved a refactored summary of a conversation to Talk:IAST#More_on_use_of_IAST to try to get more agreement on general principles. Any of you that care about these issues, please chime in. I am unsure of where to have this discussion, as the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Dharmic) and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic) pages appear to be defunct. Buddhipriya 20:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devadasi

Hi. There is a quite a dispute going on at Devadasi (see the talk) and a few other pages. I don't know much about the caste issue involved so I have had trouble dealing with the problem. Please help out if you can, thanks. The Behnam 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Govinda Chandra Dev

I need someone to work on expanding this page. Dr. GC Dev was one of the foremost Vedic and Upanishad scholars in erstwhile East Bengal/East Pakistan/Bangladesh. A first class first scholar (both BA and MA) from Calcutta University, Dr. Dev was a Philosopher, and a humanist, working for world peace. As a leading Bengali intellectual and professor of Dhaka University, he was one of the first targets chosen by Pakistan Army for execution, on the night of 25th March, 1971. His murder was a great loss not only to Bangladesh, but to the whole world.

There are lots of info available from Banglapedia (linked at the ref section), so it should be easy to expand it. I myself am running short of time, so I'd like some more ppl to help in this. Thanks in advance. --Ragib 19:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakaman is probably the best user for the job. He actively contibutes in both Hindu and Bengali articles. Gizza^Chat ^© 11:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at it, and will add things as soon as I can locate some good info.Baka man 22:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Trees For Mahabharata & Ramayana

I propose creating a family tree project for Mahabharata & Ramayana, making it easy for new readers to understand the relationships and story line in the two epics. Is there a template available for family trees? And is there a portal for Mahabharata into which we can add this or perhaps we can add it as a separate article.

let me know your comments. Vinwe 05:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good idea. I believe the best way to go about it is by creating a new article, either a separate article for each or combining them together. One benefit from merging the family trees into one page is that we can extend the family trees beyond the Ramayana and Mahabharata and include legends from the Puranas and to a lesser extent the Vedas. It is take some work however to explain the complicated relationships well to someone who doesn't know these epics well. Nice inititive! I was thinking about creating one myself a long time ago but was too lazy/busy to much more. I along with some other I hope, will be willing to help you. Gizza^Chat ^© 12:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great idea, and would like to help also. There are several different family tree templates at Wikipedia:Family trees. I suggest finding consensus on which format to use first. I like the top--->bottom tree style (as opposed to just a list) templates for looks. The last one named 'Template' looks best to me at a quick glance. But it needs to be one that's easy to use, so different editors can keep adding to it without having to know too much code. The image format approach loses the ability to edit, so a template is best, I think. Perhaps others could look there and say what they like. When I have time, I'll give them a test drive for usability. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be of help too. Am curious to see if, (1) the templates are set up to handle the complexity of Pandavas parentage(s) and marriage situation; and (2) if we will manage to crash the wikipedia servers or the just client PCs when we add the Kaurava brothers to the family tree :-) Abecedare 03:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started playing with a template in my sandbox. Check it out. It might work (though we may not have to name all 99 brothers!). Feel free to experiment, or copy to your own userspace. It takes some playing with to get used to the code, and alot of 'show preview', but it's doable. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start, ॐ Priyanath! I'll play around (preview mode!) and try to get a hang of the template. Abecedare 03:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good start. For the Pandavas, how can we add the corresponding devas, eg. Vayu for Bhima and the Ashvins for Nakula and Sahadeva? Or do we not add them because of the complexity? If we get very pedantic, I think we could add hundreds of gods and people! If we wanted to, we could add the gopis that Krishna gets married to though I don't think it is mentioned in the Mahabharat but a Purana. Gizza^Chat ^© 05:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also who are Krishna's "true" parents - the birth-parents or the ones who adopted him, or both ? Ditto for Karna, Kunti and Balarama, who arguably has two "birth-mothers"! Wish wikipedia had a richer toolset for indicating such information ... but its worth giving it a try and see how far we can proceed. Abecedare 05:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Continue the indenting :p) Another example of the difficulty on where to cut the boundary is Ravana's extended family. There are plenty of Asuras/Rakshas we can add as well. Also, I wonder how avatars will be denoted (Rama/Krishna for Vishnu, Lakshman/Balarama for Sheshnaga, Hanuman for Shiva or Madhavcharya depending on sect). And because Ganesha transcribed Vyasa's words, it is possible to add Shiva, Parvati and Murugan! I suppose we can create small, concise versions and some extended ones so we can compare and see which serves more purpose. Gizza^Chat ^© 08:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Gizza - I would like a separate article also. We can start off with the main set of characters and expand further. The current templates however, aren't great. Also, I would think we can just name each Avatar separately in the tree(and maybe link the same origins somehow) @Priyanath - We can think of some minor modifications for the template to add devas etc for each character(or avatars etc). And your template is a really good start for the family tree. I'll try to make changes as well. @Abecedare - The kaurava situation might cause us some problems.. :). Also, only birth parents are to be added. In Karna's case it is clear. However it might be a problem in Balarama's where we can call it a surrogate mom--real mom in a side branch. Vinwe 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied all the above suggestions to the discussion page of Priyanath's sandbox version, where it will be easier to hash out the details. Once the article(s) is/are created, we can move the discussion to the relevant talk pages. Abecedare 14:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Karma in Hinduism

Karma in Hinduism has been nominated to become a Feature Article. Please provide your input. Gizza^Chat ^© 12:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hopeless hindus?

I've decided to start a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics#Questionable_comment so we can come to a consensus about some unfortunate comments from a user with a predilection toward Hinduism.Baka man 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review requested for Ganesha

Copied from WT:HINDU, [sd] 11:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC):[reply]

Namaste. Please help improve the article on Ganesha by participating in a peer review of it. ॐ गं गणपतये नमः Buddhipriya 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Ganesha. Happy editing, [sd] 22:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_10#Jurists_by_religion where Category:Hindu jurists is up for deletion.Baka man 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC) and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_16#Category:Hindu_musicians.Baka man 01:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tirumala Venkateswara Temple

I have made extensive modifications to the Tirumala Venkateswara Temple. While i am planning to include more content as well as daughter pages, i wanted some feedback at the current state. Completed activities:

revived Vaikuntha Ekadasi
added Seva in Tirumala that captures the current sevas in the temple
expanded Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams

Future additions:

Idols in the temple. Already added Bhoga Srinivasa. To follow - Mallayappa swami, dhruva bera (main deity), ugra srinivasa, koluvu srinivasa
Expand on yearly festivals. To add on brahmostavam as well as create articles on vasanthostavam, rathasapthami
add article on Vaikuntam Queue complex

Please leave feedback and i shall try and ensure that these articles are sent for peer review within the next couple of months.Kalyan 19:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Aum Symbol

My english is low, excuseme. I am thinking to change the aum simbol to or into Template:Hinduism_small

Thanks --Wilfredor 21:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you make that? It looks great. Make sure it's the red one - it's never depicted in black.

--Zubedar 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of the word god

We have been discussing pros and cons of capitalizing the word "god/God" in this thread and I am curious to find out what others think on this question. There does nto seem to be any current standard approach for how to handle it across multiple Hinduism articles. I suspect that the choice may need to take into consideration the subject of the article. Of course Devi and other feminine forms of the divine must be addressed using the appropriate gender, but in Hinduism the philosophical concept Brahman is in the neuter grammatical gender. Devanagari and other Indic writing systems do not have the concept of capitalization so in transliteration of Sanskrit in academic texts you often see no capitalization of any Sanskrit words, but it is done sometimes to comply with English conventions. The word "God" also raises issues about monotheism. The article for Devas does not capitalize "gods", and other terms such as "divinities" are more cognate to deva than the word god. Any thoughts on this mix of issues? Buddhipriya 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kausalya, Sumitra and Kaikeyi

I accidentally put this notice on the WT:INB a few days ago. Discussion can continue here

Does this page have any value? They all have their own individual articles. I think that is enough and this article should be deleted. Gizza^Chat ^© 08:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page is redundant. If someone puts in the effort to prod it, I will support deletion. By the way Gizza, did you mean to post this message on WT:HNB ? May have attracted more input there. Abecedare 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake! I didn't notice that this is the INB for some strange reason. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]