Talk:Hinduism/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have added this link on why hindus are declining in the world and why hindus all over the world are degraded for one reason on other --http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?id=1131077479&type=articles.
--- Kong
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | ā | Archive 5 |
Is Buddhism really a sect of Hinduism? Also how can a group of atheists be a branch of a religion? --rmhermen
- The Indian spiritual teacher Gautama Buddha, who founded Buddhism, rejected the Vedas as invalid and obsolete. According to the sutras, he spoke of the Divine, devas and God but was neither a theist nor an atheist but a non-theist. Brahmans or Brahmins absorbed him and his teachings into what is now called Hinduism (as with most Indian rishis); making him the 9th incarnation of Vishnu. Be well. Usedbook
The nastika schools are not branches of Hinduism; they are more a traditional Hindu conceptualisation and categorisation of their opponents. -- Simon J Kissane
That is not clear from the article but sounds correct. --rmhermen
Would it be possible to tease out the parts not specific to Hinduism as a religion, and move it to something like Ancient History of South Asia? I'm thinking of the parts about Mohenjodaro and Harappa, and about the Aryans. Or are they too integral to be seperated? --DanKeshet
Well, since Hinduism isn't, strictly speaking, "a religion", but more a cluster of religious beliefs, philosophical views, histories, and cultural practices, there may be no point in trying to differentiate between Hinduism as "a religion" and its historical-etc. context. --kaleideion
Note that the Aryan invasion theory is presented as fact in older history books. I summarized the views of the expert community. Frankly, I don't even have a strong POV on the issue - other than that I'd like it to be explained as clearly as possible. Feel free to substitute "largely discredited" for "cast into doubt" if you don't like that phrase. Mkweise 20:21 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)
Re: the latest edit, I think we should avoid implying that these are a dogma that defines hinduism, since many of these are disputed between Hindus, and groups that consider themselves "hindu" may subscribe to varying subsets of the nine points you listed. As it is, this sounds like the "Nine Commandments of Hinduism", which is just wrong. Thoughts? Graft
- It's not at all like "commandments"; it's an after-the-fact "compilation" of common beliefs. I think the article should have a concise summary of Hindu beliefs, don't you? Which point(s) is it that doesn't apply to all Hindus? Would you be happier with a "most Hindus" type wording?
- Some time in the early 1990s, the supreme court of India came up with a legal definition of Hinduism, which IIRC is comprised of 4 common beliefs. I'll see if I can dig that up. Mkweise 20:53 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
- if i remember right, the supreme court also equivocated a lot in that legal definition and said, basically, "this isn't definitive, but it's the best we can come up with." I'd generally agree with most of the points listed, except #6,7,8 and 9. I've never been taught that one -needs- a guru to become enlightened, and I think the example of Gautama Buddha demonstrates otherwise. I'd say that a lot of the more philosophical strains of Hinduism frown on interpreting daityas & danavas etc. literally. And though in a general sense it might be true that Hindus believe all life is sacred (insofar as they believe everything is sacred), the extension of this to imply that "ahimsa" is universally prized and applied to non-injury towards other living beings is disputable. The Gita, for example, is a text which has been interpreted to mean that "ahimsa" does not prohibit specific acts of violence against material beings to ensure the greater good. And finally, though it's regrettable, parts of the Hindutva movement have questioned the idea that "Ekam sat, vipraha bahuda vadanti" and other such religiously-tolerant sayings mean that Hinduism accepts the validity of, for example, Islam or Christianity, and instead interpret such sayings as meaning there are many different folds within the Hindu faith. Though I find this a reprehensible development, I can't say that it implies they're no longer Hindus for believing so. Graft
So, here's the 1966 "legal definition" according to the Supreme Court.
- Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters and acceptance with reverence of Vedas by Hindu thinkers and philosophers as the sole foundation of Hindu philosophy.
- Spirit of tolerance and willingness to understand and appreciate the opponent's point of view based on the realization that truth is many-sided.
- Acceptance of great world rhythm-vast periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession-by all six systems of Hindu philosophy.
- Acceptance by all systems of Hindu philosophy of the belief in rebirth and pre-existence.
- Recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are many.
- Realization of the truth that numbers of Gods to be worshiped may be large, yet there being Hindus who do not believe in the worshiping of idols.
- Unlike other religions, or religious creeds, Hindu religion's not being tied down to any definite set of philosophic concepts, as such.
As this is now a long page, maybe it would be good to give the Astika their own page, separate from this one? Yngwin 16:47 16 May 2003 (UTC)
See this diff for a large deletion by Ndpandit. The section didn't read well, and seems to me to be dubious (although I'm not knowledgeable in this area), but it could do with reviewing to make sure we didn't loose any useful information. -- sannse 14:18 17 May 2003 (UTC)
- Somewhat amusing that the deletion was done by a "pandit", but ... having read through it, I largely agree with the deletion. The text describes one particular point of view on Hinduism (i.e., there was no such thing beyond a syncretism constructed through British influence). It's a particular point of view taken by nationalist groups, and makes a fair amount of sense from that perspective. If you are an oppressed group (i.e. the dalits) you wish to articulate demands from those in power. Therefore it is necessary for you to construct an identity for your group that separates you from that power group (in this case, the ruling Hindu elites). You could merely engage in a class war, but nationalism has many more advantages. So it's necessary to present a version of history that supports your story of a separate historical identity for your group. In this case, "dalits were never Hindus, the Hindus have only been calling us that so they can pretend to speak for us." How true this is, I'm not qualified to say... I haven't made a good study of the history and these claims. But, it's definitely not neutral, and would need to be heavily defended before I would be willing to accept it in the article. On the other hand, it -is- a significant viewpoint regarding Hindus, but I think it belongs in another article, maybe the one on dalits. Graft
- Hi, this is the Pandit who deleted that portion. One really has to delve into the history of pre-independent India to get a good perspective on so-called anti-God (& anti-Hindu) Dravidian movement of early 20th century. For those who are interested, an excellent resource is -- India: A million mutinies now, by Nobel laureate V. S. Naipaul. It was written in 1989 so it is already somewhat dated, but it has captured the mood of the nation in a marvelous way. Coming back to the Hinduism article -- my main objection to the deleted portion has been somewhat covered by Graft. To this I would add: Not only is the deleted portion a very biased point of view, but it is likely that it would not find serious acceptance with any large group of modern Hindu soceity except for (a) the fringe elements like those who run websites like(blanked) (b) christian missionaries and the like. It is noteworthy that Ambedkar, one of the propounders of the idea, withdrew it and instead went on to head the committee that framed the Indian Constitution. Further, the deleted portion reads like an artificial appendage with no real connection to the main article. BTW, it is noteworthy that the groups that Graft calls as nationalists would likely be recognised as anti-nationalists by mainstream Indian soceity. Just goes to show the amount of disconnect between mainstream Indian soceity and western soceity -- or even between the "real India" and the Indian English media. To understand India, one has to go vernacular. Or read Naipaul. Ndpandit
- I call them nationalist in the political science sense, meaning they define their politics around a particular identity and agitate for independence and self-government for that identity. I do not mean to suggest that they are pro-India, which, of course, they are not. Graft
- Hi, this is the Pandit who deleted that portion. One really has to delve into the history of pre-independent India to get a good perspective on so-called anti-God (& anti-Hindu) Dravidian movement of early 20th century. For those who are interested, an excellent resource is -- India: A million mutinies now, by Nobel laureate V. S. Naipaul. It was written in 1989 so it is already somewhat dated, but it has captured the mood of the nation in a marvelous way. Coming back to the Hinduism article -- my main objection to the deleted portion has been somewhat covered by Graft. To this I would add: Not only is the deleted portion a very biased point of view, but it is likely that it would not find serious acceptance with any large group of modern Hindu soceity except for (a) the fringe elements like those who run websites like(blanked) (b) christian missionaries and the like. It is noteworthy that Ambedkar, one of the propounders of the idea, withdrew it and instead went on to head the committee that framed the Indian Constitution. Further, the deleted portion reads like an artificial appendage with no real connection to the main article. BTW, it is noteworthy that the groups that Graft calls as nationalists would likely be recognised as anti-nationalists by mainstream Indian soceity. Just goes to show the amount of disconnect between mainstream Indian soceity and western soceity -- or even between the "real India" and the Indian English media. To understand India, one has to go vernacular. Or read Naipaul. Ndpandit
To the person who keeps inserting the "historical note" - wikipedia has a policy on maintaining a neutral point of view in articles. I suggest you read this policy. Your additional text is in no way neutral. It is severely biased to a particular historical perspective. If you wish to include this perspective, I suggest you (a) do it in a separate article, as I don't think one group's idiosyncratic view on Hinduism belongs in this article, and (b) do it in a way that is neutral - that is, describe who has this point of view on Hinduism, possibly why, and on what grounds this view is contested. As you have it, the passage is not in any way neutral. Graft 01:20 26 May 2003 (UTC)
Again I would appeal to the people who seek to hide history: Neutrality means listening to all viewpoints on a particular topic. The current topic is 'Hinduism'. There are many divergent views of the meaning of the word. It is important, in the interest of free thought, which is what an encyclopedia is all about, to see all points of view on a topic.
The action of deleting is both cowardly and offensive. Deleting a portion would mean that your theories cannot face up to the facts.
Please present you own viewpoint which might seem neutral to your good selves but to an unbiased observer is just another viewpoint.
These Wikis and other institutions have originated in the West in the spirit of free thought, free enterprise, individual liberties, and so on. Since this is based in the West, please respect these institutions. Christianity itself can be put up to ridicule in the West and people are free to think what they want about it. Why are you guys trying to prevent your little words from being presented from a different viewpoint ?
Many concrete and valid points have been raised which you would do well to address.
Listen, you simply do not understand wikipedia policy. Stop inserting that text into this article. It does not belong there. This is not a "free speech" wiki, where you can insert whatever you want. It -must- attempt to be neutral. The phrase "The RSS philosophy is rabidly Hitlerist" is not neutral. If you do not understand why this is inappropriate for wikipedia, i ask you NOT to edit wikipedia articles.
I agree that many concrete points have been raised which should be addressed. I disagree that they should be done in this article - it is not the subject of this article - and I disagree that they should be done in the form you have included them - it is not Wikipedia:neutral point of view, which is the explicit policy for articles on this site. If you can find a way to satisfy these, then I will be willing to work with you. If you are only unwilling to listen to my concerns, then I must conclude that you are not willing to work with others in the spirit of Wikipedia. Graft 15:51 26 May 2003 (UTC)
- I agree with Graft. For one thing, your appeal to a Wikipedia administrator reflects a misunderstanding of how this project works -- it is a community project. For what it is worth, I agree with many of your points (in the historical note) and think it is important content. But Graft is right -- it does not belong in this article. Create a new article: History of Hinduism or British colonial policy and the invention of Hinduism or whatever you want to call it, and place a link in the first or second paragraph this article. As I am sure you have noticed, the opening of the article makes it plain that the status of Hindusim as a religion has unclear historical roots -- that is an ideal place to add a link to another article that explores this issue in detail, Slrubenstein
Accepted.
I would just like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. I am used to people not understanding (or not being aware of) the six systems of Indian philosophy; this article is like a breath of fresh air. I have added articles on Ashtanga Yoga and Samadhi and I hope readers will improve them. David 23:43, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
My Samadhi article seems to have been replaced by a nondescript (and insufficient) definition and its link removed. I no longer have access to the original text, so I cannot fix the article. David 21:05, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
To User:Mkweise
1. As given clearly elsewhere in the main article page- Hinduism derives from Hindu- Sindhu- Indus and not Hindi as now added.
2.Most Hindus refer to themselves as Hindus, though they do identify themselves with sects. Anyway, this does not justify the stance taken in the intro.
3.What is given in the intro second para about gurus is a detail that does not deserve such priority in intro.
4. Religions originate 'in' places, not 'on' places. (And please don't use the word dammit at a well meaning, unknown person)
To User:Lir
Some of your edits are justified. But there is some cut and paste which does not fit and some incorrect info. Please do edits slowly.
KRS 18:26, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- (1.) Sindhu -> Hindus (referring to the people living across the river, not their religion) -> Hindi (the language) -> Hinduism.
- (2.) I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "I am a Hindu"; rather, they say "Jai Swaminarayan" or "Hare Krsna", etc.
- (3.) I don't like it that much either, I wrote that as an attempt to compromize, since you objected to my previous, briefer phrasing. Why don't you make another counter-suggestion, and we'll go from there (hopefully with input from others, as well.) Meanwhile I'll try and locate that article I read in Hinduism Today a few years back, which convinced me that the term Hinduism is just as inappropriate as Mohammedanism. In any case, the naming of other religions by Christians as "-isms" (normally reserved for pathological conditions) certainly wasn't NPOV and the contrary view certainly deserves mention, don't you think?
- (4.) Use "in" with an abstract spatial reference, but "on" with a geological feature - e.g. "in India", but "on the Indian subcontinent"; "in Hawaii" (the State) but "on Hawaii" (the island). Mkweise 07:52, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I agree with the points KRS makes above. The current introductory paragraph is not neutral.
1. 1. To say that term Hinduism was coined by the British is ridiculously simplistic; you may as well say that it was coined by Iranians or Arabs because they used it first. The term evolved because of a complex interplay between Indians, Persians, and British/Europeans. As did the name of the country 'India', or the language 'Hindi'. And most Hindus do in fact refer to themselves as Hindus, especially in English.
2. I'd dispute that the term Dharma literally means 'Path' or 'Way'. The Sanskrit word 'path' literally means path or way! If Dharma has any English word as its literal equivalent, it is 'Duty'. Neither 'Path', nor 'Way' appear in the Capeller translation of the word Dharma.
Imc 20:30, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)