Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sindhian (talk | contribs) at 07:37, 8 July 2008 (→Another example of delibrate defamatory propaganda against hinduism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hinduism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hinduism at the Reference desk.

	Hinduism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	Hinduism has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 24, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 19, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted March 29, 2006 Featured article review Kept June 26, 2006 Featured article review Demoted December 4, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 4, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Former featured article, current good article

You can contribute at Hinduism related collaboration of the week. Any registered wikipedian can nominate an article and can vote for the nominated articles. Voting also indicates interest in contributing during the weekly collaboration cycle. Every Friday, the votes are tallied, and the winner will be promoted for a week to potential contributors.

Template:Bounty expired

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Nepal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22

Typo

First paragraph "Conversion" persons --> person's

Religion is spelled wrong in first sentence.

The article still includes numerous mechanical and grammatical errors. I just now corrected the first third of the article (if you'll accept the corrections). Chain27 (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to give the Manual of Style a look before you start making these kinds of changes. For example, Misplaced Pages favors logical quoting, but in your edits you have moved punctuation inside quotation marks. Ilkali (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymology - A pespective

I would suggest adding the following to the article.

Some argue that the term in itself is an attempt to give one term to "that many-sided and all-enfolding culture which we in the West have chosen to call Hinduism" Jan Gonda, Visnuism and Sivaism, Munshiram Manoharlal. 1996, ISBN 812150287X p. 1. cited by Welbon, G.R. (Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 43, No. 1, 98+100. Mar., 1975.). "Love of God According to Saiva Siddhanta: A Study in the Mysticism and Theology of Saivism". Retrieved 2008-05-04. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

Thanks Wikidās ॐ 13:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why the article uses the phrase "religious tradition"

This is why - Talk:Hinduism/Archive 21#Religion versus set of beliefs. Both consensus and reliable sources determined the decision so there is no reason why it should be changed without discussion. Gizza 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism not a religion

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that Hinduism is not a religion. Please see, 'http://www.bjp.org/history/htv-jag.html', 'http://www.newsanalysisindia.com/supremcourt.htm' and 'http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1412/is%20Hinduism.htm'. Shouldn't you guys consider this?

Um why? There is no policy on Misplaced Pages that states the Supreme Court of India has absolute authority on all Hinduism-related matters. We rather summarise from a host of reliable sources. Thanks Gizza 05:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also this is very clearly a decision taht only applies within a certain context. From your own reference:

Whether a particular speech in which reference is made to Hindutva and/or Hinduism falls within the prohibition under sub-section (3) or (3A) of Section 123 is, therefore, a question of fact in each case.

It is talking about whether a speech was asking people to vote on religious grounds. The court found that in this context the speech could be encouraging people to vote for candidates with an Indian cultural outlook, which is legal. In other words the ruling states that Hinduism can be used in a way not meaning religion, not that it doesn't ever mean a religion. In in the reference itself it is clearly used that way, e.g.:

The development of Hindu religion and philosophy shows that from time to time saints and religious reformers attempted to remove from the Hindu thought and practices elements of corruption and superstition and that led to the formation of different sects. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way... none of your links work. --59.93.201.20 (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

hard to read?

i was just interested in learning a little bit of general information about the religion but i found the introduction hard to gain information from, i thought that it was very clutterd with overly complicated words. i know i should read the whole article but like most i dont have that much time on my hands. if somebody could make the introduction a little bit easier to read and understand about what it is and its main points so that general unknowlagable people can eaisly understand it i would be greatly thankfull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.52.60 (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You could try the Simple English version, though after a quick look I wouldn't say that it was much easier. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've simplified the lead a bit. There are still some complicated sentences but your feedback on whether its readibility has improved is welcome. Gizza 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is an improvement. There is a limit to what can be done because this is a complex subject that needs comprehensive coverage. I am not sure whether an encyclopedia is the easiest way to get a little bit of general information on a topic, or even if that should be its aim. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure about your second point. I think an encyclopedia is to provide general/introductory information on a topic. That is one reason why Jimbo Wales encourages students not to cite Misplaced Pages but to conduct their research by using detailed books, journals and reliable websites. It is also why articles such as this need to follow WP:SS. Gizza 12:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the opening needs to be changed... quite drastically... The second paragraph has two or three lines simply listing countries that have large Hindu populations... this is not only boring, but veers offtrack from discussion of Hinduism to discussion of demographics... A simple statement that the world has a billion or so Hindus, with a majority living in India and Nepal, is enough. Links or later paragraphs in the body of the article will tell aspiring sociologists where else they can look.

It's important to discuss scripture, but there's hardly any mention of the major basic tenets of Hinduism in the introduction! All I learn about Hinduism's outlook is that it has something to do with dharma, which is a vague law or set of laws. Here's an example of what I think would be better -

"Hinduism is an extremely diverse set of beliefs and practices which often defies easy categorization. However, most practitioners generally follow or accept the centrality of dharma, both practical and spiritual law or harmony, the existence of some kind of superpower or God (expressed in many forms), and a variety of means of attaining liberation/moksha from the cycle of birth and rebirth through various ritualistic Vedic, meditative and devotional yogic, and in some cases more esoteric tantric, practices."

Look, I wrote this off the cuff. But I think it does a decent job of, in one regular and one long sentence, of condensing at least the general approach of Hinduism. Add in a bit about scriptures divided into Shruti and Smriti, with the Vedas-Upanishads, the epic poems and 'histories', various sectarian Agamas or sect-specific works (like Yoga Sutras or Devi Mahatmya), and of course the Bhagavad Gita, and you're done... what say you? Am I on the right track here? What I'm offering may still be dense, but I believe it's more focused on the question of what "Hinduism" is than the current intro. --59.93.220.63 (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point about the demographics sentence. There have been suggestions previously that a separate demographics section be made in line with other religion articles. We could move this sentence (and add a bit more detail) to such a section, which would create space for an introduction into the key concepts in Hinduism. Gizza 08:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Smaarthism, not Smartism

In the 'Denominations' section, under the 'Society' heading, we now have, "However, academics categorize contemporary Hinduism into four major denominations: Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism and Smartism". It should be spelt 'Smaarthism', not 'Smartism', just so that people get the pronunciation right and 'Shaktism' should be spelt 'Shukthiism (or at least Shakthiism)'. I also suggest that to get the pronunciation right, a 'h' is added wherever it is required. e.g.'Gayathree' instead of 'Gayatree'

See Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Indic). Some of your pronunciations don't seem to fit, e.g gāyatrī, गायत्री has no "h") -- Q Chris (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to echo Q Chris... when it comes to Sanskrit most people should stick with IAST (standard Sanskrit transliteration system for English).... gayathree and smarthism and shakthiism would all have aspirated 't's for readers of that system... (if you know Bengali or Hindi/Urdu, the 't's would sound like the 't's in "thaali" (platter, plate) or "thak gayaa" (got tired). And shukthiism would make a lot of people, not familiar with transcriptions, say "shuk" like "I shook the treebranch"! --59.93.193.97 (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism

There is no such thing or religion. The word Hindu is an European word to describe the people who lived East of the Indus river. The word was a derivative of a word used by Arab traders to describe these pople as Indu.

This is same as European "scholars" and explorers such as Columbus calling the natives of the American continent Indians. There is no such thing either. The natives of America do not call themselves Indians. They call themselves varioulsy Mohawk, Haida, Algonquin and Sioux etc. The Europeans thought they had discovered India (based on Indus river) when they arrived in the Americas.

The word Hinduism is a word coined by simplistic European "scholars" including Mayo who used this word to describe the collection of ideas written and practiced in the Indian sub continent. This collection of work included scientific treaties such as the Vedas and Purans and logical and philosophical treaties such as the Upandishads or the Shastras. For example Kautilyas Arthashastra is a treatise on Economics. This cannot be called Hinduism just like the work of Adam Smith on the Wealth of a Nation cannot the called Europeanism. Vatsyana's Kama Sutra is a manual on Sex and not some doctrine.

In one of the Purans there is description of time measurements starting from the smallest division to hours, days, years, millenniums and eons. The smallest division of time was Nimesh and the next was Palak which is equivalent to the time it takes to bat your eye. The hour was called Ghatika. This is the science of measurement of time and it cannot be called Hinduism. You can change a measurement system just like pounds are changed to Kilogram or miles are changed to Kilometers.

There was a reason why this word Hinduism was coined by Europeans. In their desire to rule or colonize the world this word was coined to dismiss all the ideas of the Indian sub continent. One English "scholar" wrote that all the written knolwedge of India (and Arabia) will fill one bookshelf in the British Library. This is same as one Cola company dismisses the product of another Cola company with disdain in their advertisement with an aim to dominate the market.

The word Hindu or Hinduism does not exist in the Vedas, Mahabharata, Ramyana, the Purans, the Sutras, the Shastras or in the Geeta. Of course English pepole do not call themselves Angrez which is the word used by people in India to describe them. The word Hindu also easily groups them for Colonial purposes so that they can be classed as conquered people to be separated from the ruling class.

Now the religion part of it. There is no such religion either. This is simplistic and does not make any sense. Once an Ameican traveller was asked by an African native what tribe do you belong to? The American said, I do not belong to any tribe, I am an American. The people in India do not practice any religion as practiced by the people in the Jordan valley or the decendants of Abraham. The people in India practice Dharma which means a way of life or simply lifestyle. This way of life is adjusted according to the exsiting level of knowledge and science. Of course we now know that the Sun starts it suothern journey on December 21 and not on January 14 as earlier known. So you adjust your life accordingly. The bottom line is that Dharma is not religion. Religion is controlled by a hierarchy and it has doctrines and edicts and a religious leader. Dharma is basically life style and even a Television personality or a Yoga instructor can be a leader of lifestyle depending on her knolwedge. For example most people in India try to follow a vegetarian diet. This is based on the idea that it is more environmentally friendly as you consume less food and allow other species to live. As you can clearly see the Western diet such as eating sea food has now in hundred years led to the collapse of all ocean life and scientists expect (Journal of Science) that there will be no fish to catch in the ocean by 2050.

I will leave you with a scientific view contained in the Brahmasutras which says that the earth is round and its ecosystem is indivisible (land, oceans, atomosphere etc.) and life on earth manifests itself in those that look for nutrients (Chara) and those that draw nuturients directly from the earth (Achara). A balance is needed between plant life and other forms of life as they depend on each other. This is a pure scientific observation and not some ism.

It is true that the common people in India do practice old and bizarre life styles but this is mainly because of illiteracy. They are victims of misinterpretation. Even literate and educated people with a doctorate can be vitimized becasue most of the old text is written in Sanskrit and very few people understand the language. Because the lnaguage is not used commonly, even priests recite them by rote and cannot interpret the texts well.

However recognizing that there is a market place, the word Hinduism has been adopted by modern people who are able to earn a living by creating a consolidated and simplistic model just as one could open a museum of Indians (natives of America) and make some money from the visitors or make a Cowboys and Indians movie and make some money from that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.138.213 (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Half of this is true, half of this is bullshit, and the whole thing ignores the fact that there is an entity which "Hinduism" refers to, a definite and real system of teachings which all fall under a Vedic/Vedist rubric... Vaishnavs and Shaivaites and Tantrics and Yogis and Bhaktas of all stripes have always considered themselves a part of a special umbrella to the exclusion of the followers of "Baudha Dharma" and "Jaina Dharma" and "Lokayata". Where's that part in your spiel?! I'm with you on the idea that "Hinduism" may not be the best name, but it's happened that way. Most English speakers (and speakers of non-Indian languages) aren't going to suddenly call it "Veda Dharma" or "Arya Dharma" (by which names the Vedic system has been referred by its own followers thousands of years ago...)... or "Santana Dharma" for that matter...

As for TV personalities may have thought patterns and rituals or practices that mirror Hindu practice but so might Christians... as for yoga teachers, well, DUH, Yoga is one of the six Astika (meaning following the Vedas) schools of philosophy!!!! You're wrong. Also, this has been discussed before. --59.93.193.97 (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion, not Religious Tradition

Hinduism is not a "religious tradition." I can find thousands of verifiable sources that call Hinduism a religion. Nikkul (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism are not described as religious traditions. They are described as religions. Nikkul (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The "religious tradition" wording was sourced. And, based on my own readings, it made sense. As far as I'm aware, various segments of what the western world calls "Hinduism" do not identify as "Hindu" in the sense that Protestants and Catholics alike identify as "Christian." Hinduism, I believe, is sort of an umbrella term that has been used to encompass a wide variety of rather disparate religious traditions on the Indian subcontinent. Moreover, many Hindus would regard Christians, Muslims, etc. as Hindus in a sense, because these Hindus assimilate other--and, in their view, ostensibly distinct--objects of worship into their belief system as Ishta-devas (so you could also argue that, in a sense, Hinduism is a conglomeration, not only of disparate Indian faiths, but also of widely varying faiths all around the world). But I needn't ramble on, because I'm going to WP:AGF for whomever added the "religious tradition" phrasing, and trust that if you would like a decent explanation of that phrasing, then you need only to head down to the library and pick up the source. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there's a huge talk page post about this very topic, immediately before this section. Interesting that you didn't comment on it directly. Anyway, I've reverted to the previous, sourced version that calls it a religious tradition. If other sources call it a "religion," and if you uncover significant controversy in this regard, then feel free to introduce the controversy into the article itself (making certain, of course, to cite your sources). Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte is very much correct here. In fact if you look near the top of the page currently, I point specifically to which archives. I'll copy my message from there.

This is why - Talk:Hinduism/Archive 21#Religion versus set of beliefs. Both consensus and reliable sources determined the decision so there is no reason why it should be changed without discussion. Gizza 09:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"oldest religion" once again

sigh, I don't know how many times we've been over that. "Oldest religion" is as meaningless a term as "oldest language". I know that many popular blogs and cheap journalism like to tout Hinduism as "the oldest religion", but we are trying to be an encyclopedia. There is no shortage of academic sources on the history of Hinduism, so there really isn't any excuse to rely on less encyclopedic sources. dab (��) 08:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you seem to be using a strawman here because the sources cited aren't popular blogs or cheap journalism. Trips (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

what is it these sources say? Look, you cannot give a date for the "age of Hinduism". That's nonsense. You can give a date for the age of the Bhakti movement (700 years or so), an age for the Puranas (1200 years or so), or an age of the Yoga Sutras (2200 years or so), but it is patently silly to try and give an "age of Hinduism". Certainly not in the lead, and certainly not in Misplaced Pages's voice. "Hinduism" is an umbrella term, not a single religion. We can give a date for historical Vedic religion, but then this isn't the article on historical Vedic religion. We don't claim Freemasonry is aged 5000 years because they worship Isis. Please try to keep this encyclopedic. dab (��) 08:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Its a general statement even used in 'Encyclopedia' Britannica, referring specifically to the umbrella term that is Hinduism, which this whole article is on. Why isnt a date posted on the historic Vedic religion article anyway, and to suggest Freemasonry is 5000 years old because of worship of Isis is synthesis and Freemasonry is not the same as continuously practiced ancient Egyptian religion.Trips (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

you are revert warring. Please remove the inferior sources again, Britannica is enough. All your sources do not go beyond the fact that "Hinduism is sometimes characterized as the oldest something or other", which is what the revision you reverted already stated. The Britannica defines Hinduism as "the beliefs and practices of Hindus, as expressed in a series of characteristic doctrinal, ritual, social, narrative, and poetic forms." I am happy with that definition, no problem. It further has "Hinduism in a wider sense encompasses Brahmanism, a belief in the Universal Soul, Brahman; in a narrower sense it comprises the post-Buddhist, caste-ordered religious and cultural world of India." that's fine too. No cheap hype there. The Britannica defines Brahmanism as "a religion of ancient India that evolved out of Vedism", and Vedism it defines as "the religion of the ancient Indo-European-speaking peoples who entered India about 1500 BC from the region of present-day Iran". That's the EB for you. Nothing wrong with that. If you have no objections, I'll replace the current disaster with these straightforward definitions. Thus, according to the Britannica, Hinduism in the wider sense is post-Vedic (say post 600 BC), and in the narrower sense is post-Buddhist, say post 200 BC). Of course it has ("continuously") evolved beyond recognition since those days, but these are the historical traditions included in the term. dab (��) 09:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about, the wording in the Britannica source is "Hinduism, one of the oldest continuous religious traditions in the world and the predominant religion of India" The New Encyclopaedia Britannica - Page 927. None of the sources mention "sometimes" either. I am only reinstating sources which you believe you opinion alone overrides. Trips (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"In recognition of these ancient sources, present-day Hindus often assert that Hinduism is the world's oldest religion." Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions" -Page 434Hinduism is both the oldest and most diverse of the world's religions": How to Prepare for SAT II - Page 90 "Hinduism is the oldest and perhaps the most complex of all the living, historical world religions" Joel Beversluis (2000). Sourcebook of the World's Religions: An Interfaith Guide to Religion and Spirituality (Sourcebook of the World's Religions, 3rd ed). Novato, Calif: New World Library. ISBN 1-57731-121-3. - your statement "evolved beyond recognition since those days" can not be correct, since most traditions do carry forward on the same basis of the mantra initiation of the Rig Veda - all other observations are quite external. --Wikidās ॐ 09:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy with "present-day Hindus often assert that Hinduism is the world's oldest religion", that's spot on. Anything else is collecting soundbites, and needs to go from the lead, and needs to be attributed in the article body. If you can agree to an encyclopedic rephrasing of your point, this doesn't need to be difficult. The current EB has ""Hinduism in a wider sense encompasses Brahmanism, a belief in the Universal Soul, Brahman; in a narrower sense it comprises the post-Buddhist, caste-ordered religious and cultural world of India." can we please rely on that instead of some random edition of 35 years ago which contained a soundbite you happened to like? I can use google myself, thanks. If you want to discuss notions of the "age of Hinduism", feel free to compile a coherent account based on scholarly sources at History of Hinduism, but don't attempt to tout WP:SYN stunts on this article's lead. This article is important, people! We cannot allow its lead to degenerate into cheap rhetorics. dab (��) 16:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've created oldest religion as a place where this, hm, discourse, can be reflected on-topic. dab (��) 17:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Trips, stop reverting. I have explained on what grounds I object to your revision. I do not insist on a fixed revision but am open to WP:DR. Propose a compromise phrasing or drop it. dab (��) 15:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In my view many points of view needs resolving in the intro. One of them is that its oldest religion, second is that this is the view that hindus maintain, third is that some do not consider hinduism a religion and yet another view is that there are many religions that are united under one label of Hinduism - each of these has a foundation in common source - Vedas. Wikidās ॐ 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

indeed, there are "many views". Which precludes us from giving one in Misplaced Pages's voice, that's my entire point: this isn't Hindupedia, we have a WP:NPOV policy. Any discussion of detail belongs to the article body or a sub-article per WP:LEAD. dab (��) 16:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that all of the views that have RS should be reflected in the lead and only that will have a NPOV. As far as I see dabs and Tripping Nambiar express one view each. Please propose a combination of the views here. It has nothing to do with Hindupedia so no need to put down one view over the other, its absolutely natural that Hindus will have a say about Hinduism and that it has to be reflected in the lead. Wikidās ॐ 17:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

{{huh}}? Where on earth did you get the idea that "all of the views that have RS should be reflected in the lead"? We would end up with articles that are all lead, no body. No, the burden is on you to establish that this "oldest religion" meme is lead-worthy in the first place. My proposal includes mentioning it as a gesture of good faith, I do not think it is at all notable. Unlike Trips, I do not advocate any view at all. I am willing to report that many Hindus are infatuated with the idea of adhering to "the oldest religion". I do not think the concept is meaningful and consequently have no view on it (viz., I think it is not even wrong), except that it is of dubious encyclopedicity. dab (��) 17:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I do think that the principle here is consensus, not 'proof', as any reliable source is the proof, to use it or not is based on the consensus. The lead in my opinion should reflect the fact that its the oldest religion, because omitting this information is just POV. Wikidās ॐ 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

of course. But, there is no consensus that "oldest religion" is even a meaningful concept, let alone that Hinduism "is" that. There is no "fact" that Hinduism is the oldest anything, that's just a pious sentiment. Go figure how many of the editors pushing for the inclusion of this statement as "fact" are themselves Hindus, and how many are neutral without personal stakes in the matter. I thought so. We are not "omitting" any information, we are attributing it. "Many Hindus insist Hinduism is 'oldest'". There. You surely can also find some 19th century Orientalist enthusiasts insisting Hinduism is 'oldest', but that's hardly lead-worthy. dab (��) 09:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

soundbite vs. fact

in what sense is Hinduism "the oldest religion continuously practiced"? Look at the other contestants. The most promising are Zoroastrianism (Zoroaster assumed to have lived around 1000 BC) and Judaism (the oldest core of the Pentateuch assumed to date back as early as the 10th century BC). It follows that "Hinduism" can only ever contest for being the "oldest religion continuously practiced" in whatever sense it predates 1000 BC. Now, the only bits of Hinduism accepted to predate this date are the family books of the Rigveda. These are commonly accepted to date to around 1500 to 1200 BC. The entire statement boils down to whatever role the Rigvedic family books (not the entire Rigveda) have in Hinduism. The Rigveda, however, reflects Vedism, specifically separated from Hinduism proper by the EB. It immediately follows that we cannot reflect the "oldest" claim as "fact". We can state it's a popularly repeated claim, that's all. Touting all of Hinduism as a "continuous tradition" is either a truism (since all traditions necessarily have some continuity going back to the Lower Paleolithic), or silly. It is remarkable that the Gayatri Mantra is aged more than 3,000 years, but that hardly "dates Hinduism" any more than the use of ancient Hebrew terms like Amen or Hallelujah dates Christianity. Hinduism in the EB's "narrow sense" begins in the Mauryan period anyway, end of discussion. dab (��) 10:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITE: the continuity or discontinuity between Vedism and Hinduism is indeed a matter of debate. Here is a reference:

• Oberhammer, Gerhard (ed.), Studies in Hinduism. Vedism and Hinduism. (1997); review: Indo-Iranian Journal 45 (2002), 59-75. Pertinent quotes from the review:

Firstly, the adequacy of the nomenclature – Vedism and Hinduism – we use needs to be clarified if we are to prevent the perception that such terms represent a unity of doctrine and practice lying beneath them.

investigating the historical relations between both and demarcating the discontinuities and continuities which must be found when Hinduism is regarded as having absorbed Vedism within itself or transformed it into a different cultural process than what it originally might have been.

Vedism managed in various ways to keep a hold on Indian thought and imagination

this is a complex debate, and belongs on history of Hinduism. It cannot be fit within the lead of this article. Avoid WP:SYN. I have made perfectly clear that the statement I oppose cannot be presented as fact. If you want to further participate in this, research academic literature and present your sources. As too often, I have the impression I am the only one actually doing this, opposing revert-warriors content to base their opinion on blogs and googled soundbites. Misplaced Pages doesn't work like that. In terms of continuous tradition, both Hinduism and Zoroastrianism of course ultimately continue prehistoric traditions, Proto-Indo-Iranian, Proto-Indo-European, and so on into the Stone Age. In this sense, all traditions are co-eval, "continuously" descending from Proto-World. dab (��) 11:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The way to measure old is not by when it started, but how long it survived. The oldest man is not the first man to walk the earth but the longest surviving one. Hence, Hinduism is the "oldest" religion. Also, I think Britannica is much more respected than Meeriam Webster. Nikkul (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To be proper you really better define to what the word 'Hinduism' refers. You can use it to refer to anything you want and for example EB (one of the editions of it) refers to it in a different meaning to what the world was originally referring to. Not just one mantra of Rig Veda, ie Savitri/Gayatri Mantra that is continues. The rites and pantheon did not change, Vishvamitra is still worshipable and Vishnu too; of course if by definition you accept Vedism as different to Hinduism - you will arrive at some strange conclusion. Show me a tradition in modern Hinduism that does not claim to be based on the Rig Veda or Vedic knowledge? Its obviously one tradition, just as well still practiced in such a wide range of practices, just as it was 15k before. Wikidās ॐ 20:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Dab is arguing that its hard to compare age of religions for various reasons, but that argument does not belong in this article. It is easily overridden by many sources which do indeed make the comparison, assuming that religion can be comparatively aged and that Hinduism is most certainly the oldest major world religion. Trips (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

statement of fact

Current lead as it stands:

Historically, Hinduism in the wider sense includes Brahmanism, religions that evolved from or based on Vedism in ancient India; in a narrower sense, it encompasses the post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions of India. Among its roots is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India.According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia, Hinduism is the oldest major world religion.

Lets hear comments here - it is a mere statement of fact that one RS states it. Wikidās ॐ 12:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose expanding it to include: Hinduism is not only one of the numerically largest but also the oldest living major tradition on earth, with roots reaching back into the prehistory. (Page 1 of A Survey of Hinduism ISBN 0791421090 By Klaus K. Klostermaier - he is the leading specialist in the field). To clarify dabs questions Vedic Hinduism is the term used to describe Vedism. I have started a discussion on the Vedism page as to rename it to this name. See The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Emotion By John Corrigan article on Hinduism by J Macdaniel. I will be adding this references to the article as well. Wikidās ॐ 12:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We can easily find more refs than Merriam-Webster for the "oldest major world religion" statement. So it doesn't have to be solely attributed to Merriam-Webster. Trips (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You must make your case clearly Trips, I suggest placing revised version with references here. Additional references will help the case of removing single source quotation. However nobody can disagree that Merriam-Webster states this. Wikidās ॐ 13:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand with your version, lots of the sources were textbooks which also included Aryan invasion, and others that skim the topic too briefly, probably not credible refs. Trips (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the 3rd paragraph of the lede.

Historically, Hinduism in the wider sense includes Brahmanism, religions that evolved from or based on Vedism in ancient India; in a narrower sense, it encompasses the post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions of India. Among its roots is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India.According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia, Hinduism is the oldest major world religion.

Hinduism is not only oldest living major tradition on earth, it is one of the numerically largest, with roots reaching back into the prehistory. It is formed of diverse traditions and types and has no single founder.

The types, sub-traditions and denominations taken together add up to Hinduism qualifying as the world's third largest religion following Christianity and Islam, with approximately a billion adherents, of whom about 905 million live in India and Nepal. Other countries with large Hindu populations include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom and Canada.

that's just cheap editorializing. If you want to throw about sources on "oldest religion", do it at history of Hinduism, not in the WP:LEAD of this article. Wikidas, do you actually know anything about "the field" at all, or do you just call Klostermaier "the leading specialist" because you happened to google a soundbite from him that happened to serve your purpose at this moment? See also here. Anyway, I repeat that the "oldest religion" shtick isn't false, it is not even false, by virtue of being unencyclopedic crap without any clear definition. Now please keep this stuff out of the lead, or consider sitting back and let the grown ups write this article. dab (��) 16:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your claims are OR and smell like your are using words like: 'unencyclopedic crap' - without even checking your sources. Klostermaier is the leading specialist in HInduism thus his view counts. Dvaita dispute the concept of Hinduism itself so a bad one from your side. Wikidās ॐ 17:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

you are not listening. I invite you to cite Klostermaier at History of Hinduism, where your discussion belongs. If you have a source for the idle claim of "leading specialist in Hinduism", I invite you to cite it at Klostermaier's article. I challenge to put your money where your mouth is and back that up before you indulge in further edit warring. The man has a degree in philosophy for crying out loud. --dab (��) 18:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dabs, when you call oxford handbooks and leading oxford professors or lecturers in Hinduism

bogus, it does not project a nice image of your editorship. You are an experienced editor you should know better what is encyclopedic. Do not revert until we reach a consensus here. We have consensus of two editors for the above. Wikidās ॐ 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit is bogus. You cherry pick soundbites out of context and obsess about touting the topic in the lead. I do in fact know better than you, by all appearances. You don't even have a semblance of a case, and answer none of the points raised. You are just revert-warring at this point. If you want to keep up a pretense of good faith, put up a {{disputed}} tag (as I have done and have been reverted. Removing cleanup tags is disruption.). You should know Misplaced Pages well enough to realize that playing stupid or WP:ICANTHEARYOU doesn't buy you the revision you want. The best you can achieve is an article riddled with warning tags, locked down for everyone, with everyone pissed off over the time wasted because some idiot tried to dodge the proper process. --dab (��) 18:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Me and Tipps have a consensus on the second paragraph and I have added a small revision here-> diff - it is based on the very good sources, so clearly not 'bogus' and we clearly do follow of proper process of arriving at consensus. I would not call other users edits 'bogus', especially if such high quality sources are used, please assume good faith. Your edits while based on sources appear as your own, {{syn}} or a minority view, not as a consistent representation of good sources. Certainly do not have a consensus. It makes sense to you, but we feel its POV pushing. We are not using 'soundbites', its is sound and complete summary of a good secondary source (read a few pages of it first, its not an 'article' it is a summary of Klostermaier's book), who is not ' modern day hindu' and its exactly on the subject, very important source, it is backed up by a number of other sources - I will give a full range today. Its is a predominate academic view and if you have another view - add the alternative sources and maybe it can be accommodated in the lede as a different point of view on the subject, it is clearly a minority view as there is a very small number of sources that will divorce Vedic religion and Hinduism. It is of course based on definition of Hinduism, what is yours? Talk to us rather then just reverting the edits, instead of asking others, do it yourself and follow the proper process. Wikidās ॐ 09:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your change -- Q Chris (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidās, Tipps: if you'll allow me to point out the obvious, Misplaced Pages is not the place for "Mine is bigger than Yours" type arguments. no one would object to the statement that Hinduism is an ancient faith, or that it has a large number of followers, but comparative terms like 'numerically largest' and 'oldest' are just begging for contradiction. let me point out, for instance, that jainism is at least as old as hinduism, and that babylonian and egyptian faiths, as well as the faiths of many indigenous peoples, may be far older. also, please remember that 'consensus' is not strictly a consensus of editors, and is clearly not a consensus of some editors over other editors. consensus in the Misplaced Pages sense means consensus about the topic by experts, with consensus by editors over presentation issues.

I understand that you're pushing for your faith here, and I respect that. that kind of interest can do wonders for an article if applied correctly. but please keep it within encyclopedic limits. Hinduism is not going to gain or lose anything because of it's portrayal in Misplaced Pages. --Ludwigs2 17:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because one world religion is older then the other is does not make it better. One just need to be clear and transparent about it. The simple statement of WP:RS that this is the oldest of world religions or major traditions is sufficient to stress the point. WP:CON makes it very clear that we need to arrive at consensus. And you are not quite right - it is not that consensus is different views that agree as in different verifiable and otherwise reliable sources. Consensus is when a few editors do not object to a statement and in this case it means we should find a middle ground, state a statement of primary view on Hinduism and then mention, possibly in the body of the text rather then in the lede, that this view is not shared by some other academics such as ... sources go here.... (waiting to have a WP:RS from contesting editors). First of course the widely accepted view that Hinduism is the oldest living world religion as it states: "oldest living major tradition". Jainism is a tradition, not major, that is distinguished sometimes from Hinduism. You may think that you can compare the two but can not say that Jainism is a major living tradition or is "oldest living major tradition", that is Hinduism; however points of agreement between Jainism and Hinduism are extraordinarily extensive, and some do include Jainism and lately Buddhism in Hinduism. We are not suggesting that in this article or the lead, however this view may be reflected as a minority view in the body of the article, just as a minority view that Vedic Hinduism is not Hinduism expressed by Dabs. While there are no hard-and-fast line of demarcation between the Jainism and Hinduism in the views of many, it is a widely accepted fact that Babylonian faith is not a living faith, certainly not a world religion. Please do not mistake us for being zealous hindus, we just want to call things right names, and yes this is the purpose of Misplaced Pages, "oldest living major tradition" is the right name.

If reliable sources found that contradict the above, we should consider them for this article. Wikidās ॐ 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidās - I think you're missing the point in what I said. oldest is a comparative; old is not. the only reason to say oldest is to draw some sort of relation to other faiths, which is problematic in this context, and particularly so in the lead. now I am not averse to some phrasing of this sort, but it would have to be impeccably sourced (Merriam/Webster is not appropriate - it's a third-hand source - and the other source you gave does not use 'oldest' as an analytical subject but as introductory glue in a work that talks about other things). Find me a respectable source that says "Hinduism began at such and such a time, Jainism began at..., judaism began at... (etc.) therefore Hinduism is the oldest living religion" and I'll cede your point completely. but please don't try to stuff a comparative in there as a fact without going the extra mile to make it ironclad.

If nothing else, realize that Dab is also trying to produce an accurate article here. he wouldn't be objecting if he didn't have questions about it. rather than trying to bowl him over by being insistent, try making a convincing argument. he strikes me as someone who will respond to reason if you give it to him. --Ludwigs2 19:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

reaching forward for a consensus

We need to be reasonable. There are two sides to the story and we can find a middle ground. At least we should try.

I agree that Dab is trying to produce an accurate article. Thus we need to balance the views, find correct wording and please understand that I do not reject views that dab presents, except when he rejects the commonly accepted norms as 'bogus'.

Following are the references that support the use of the word oldest. There is nothing wrong with using it. 1. Diana Keuss, Learning and Teaching Scotland (2005), Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies (PDF), p. 5, retrieved 2008-06-26, 2. Vaz, P. (2001), "Coexistence of Secularism and Fundamentalism in India", Handbook of Global Social Policy: p. 124, retrieved 2008-06-26, Hinduism is the oldest of all the major world religions. {{citation}}: |pages= has extra text (help), 3. Beteille, A. (1998), "The Indian heritage--a sociological perspective", The Indian human heritage: p. 87 {{citation}}: |pages= has extra text (help), 4. Eastman, R. (1999). The Ways of Religion: An Introduction to the Major Traditions. Oxford University Press, USA., 5. Klostermaier, K.K. (1994). A Survey of Hinduism. State University of New York Press. pp. p. 1. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help), 6. Dimensions in Religion: Teacher's Resource Book - p. 15 "the oldest of the living traditions, has no 'founder'", 7.' New York Times Almanac 2004, John W. Wright, p. 489 "Hinduism is the oldest of the world's great religions." 8. Sociology in Our Times - p. 540, by Diana Elizabeth Kendall, Kendall - 2000 "We begin with Hinduism because it is believed to be one of the world's oldest current religions", 9. Religion and American Cultures: An Encyclopedia of Traditions. p. 119 "world's oldest living civilization and religion" 10. The Volume Library: A Modern, Authoritative Reference for Home and School p. 1938"Hinduism - The third largest religion and the oldest major religion." 11. How to Prepare for SAT II: World History - p. 90, Marilynn Hitchens, Heidi Roupp - 2001, "Hinduism is both the oldest and most diverse of the world's religions, easily mutable and readily able to incorporate new ideas."

(not this one?? (0.) The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism - p. xvi 2001 - "It's the world's oldest religion, going back to the very dawn of history."}

But definitely this one (12.) "It is also recognized as the oldest major religion in the world". Encyclopedia of Relationships Across the Lifespan - p 359 Jeffrey S. Turner

I will be adding only the major ones to the article. Lets hear a more balanced view. I have already balanced it significantly. Lets see how far we can go without claiming that earth is flat (or that Vedism is a separate religion or that Jeffrey S. Turner is a 'modern day Hindu who asserts it' ). Wikidās ॐ 20:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would have serious reservations about including a statement to this effect in the lead. There are several problems with using such a statement.

• 1. There is no clear definition of what "religion" is in this sense. I know the majority of independent observers have stated that Hinduism has changed as much if not more than most of the other major world religions. On that basis, what we might reasonably say that "Hinduism" is the oldest name still ascribed to a currently extant religion, but that statement isn't really saying much. Also, is it older than, say, Shamanism, which has also been described as a religion? I tend to think no, and I think the majority of experts in the field would agree. It might take me a while to find sources though. This however highlights the fact that there isn't a single universally agreed upon definition of religion, making the use of such a statement without qualifiers as to what the definition of religion is at best dubious.
• 2. Also, such a statement would have to be further qualified with something to the effect of "of which we today have clear evidence". After all, we would want to indicate that we are basing this on scientific evidence. There is some evidence to indicate that Paleolithic religion can be substantiated by external evidence as being older than Hinduism, so such a qualifier would be required there.
• Taking both of those into account, I think that, while it might make sense to say in the lead something to the effect that many Hindus claim it is the oldest religion, there is nowhere near unanimity in the scientific community to say anything more than that. Particularly since, as per the Paleolithic religion page, the first evidence of the unusual burial of a shaman occurred 30,000 years ago, well before the 7500 or so years which Hinduism can be dated back. John Carter (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John - there is no single definition of the word religion - the word religion should be substituted for religious tradition in relation to Hinduism, see also consensus record on this Talk page. Paleolithic religion of South India is related to Hinduism as claimed by some. Wikidās ॐ 07:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't entirely agree with that either, I'm afraid. Although I'm stunned the Shamanism in Siberia page doesn't yet reference Mircea Eliade's book on Shamanism, drawn from study of primarily Siberian shamans, it could well be that that religious tradition may be older. And, from what I remember of Eliade's book, it too tends to adhere to a generally common set of beliefs, much as Hinduism or any other religious tradition. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, your research is most welcome at the "oldest religion" article. I have no idea why you want to cram this stuff into the lead of this article. Obviously, all religious tradition ultimately goes back to the Middle Paleolithic. It is patently nonsensical to refer to such remote prehistoric traditions as "Hinduism". Hence the point is really moot. I fail to see how this "oldest religion" meme can be of any encyclopedic interest. Paleolithic religion of India is related to Hinduism in exactly the same way Paleolithic religion of Arabia is related to Islam, or the way Paleolithic religion of Italy to Roman Catholicism. It's a truism. Now I have never objected to mentioning the meme "Hinduism is oldest" in the lead, so please stop trying to misrepresent my position. Currently, we have Hinduism is often presented as the "oldest religious tradition" among the world's major religious groups, or as "oldest living major tradition". There is nothing wrong with that, except in terms of style. Five footnotes. "Oldest" repeated twice over. Anyone reading this will go "oh, we get it, they had some Hindus pushing this and they ended up with an awkwardly redundant statement with obsessive referencing. Poor Misplaced Pages.". This article will never become a high value encyclopedia article (let alone featured) as long as we allow zealot adherents like Wikidas to damage encyclopedic style in this way. But I'll say again that I have no objections to the statement ''Hinduism is often presented as the "oldest religious tradition" among the world's major religious groups or as "oldest living major tradition" -- I just wonder what it is doing in the article lead. Do we see "Christians often present Christianity as the only true religion and the one path to salvation" in the lead of Christianity? It's a true statement, and yet has no place in any encyclopedia article, go figure. --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Your research or speculation, and ideas of unpublished analysis and synthesis of published material clearly serves to advance a position in your article on "oldest religion" (possibly short for O.R.. It is clearly that if you to write properly such an article the claims should be part of the respective articles of all religions and NRMs (if they are not OR) you are listing. I have no idea why you want to separate and compare all the incomparable items in this synthesis of published material of that article. Obviously, you are wrong, and not all religious tradition ultimately go back to the Middle Paleolithic. What a clear misunderstanding of major religions traditions that we have. All world religions have a founder or founders, bar one. Its clear from the lead of the article and you patently nonsensical in your denial of this, yes pre-historic traditions are called "Hinduism" and there are clear elements of Paleolithic religion in the present days Hindusims as well. Anyway, good thing about Wiki is that even if we disagree, we will come up with a decent compromise that will reflect the consensus, and that is our goal. Wikidās ॐ 12:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

my compilation at oldest religion was a quick survey of sources. I have since improved it further and moved it to Urreligion. It is a perfectly encyclopedic topic. It is painfully obvious that you are attempting to shoot it down not out of concern for encyclopedicity but in the interst of your single-topic interest of touting Hinduism. Look, "Hinduism" isn't even a native term. It is what the Muslims in India called anything that wasn't Islamic. So you shouldn't be surprised "Hinduism" has no single founder. Sheesh, if you go to Talk:Muhammad you'll find no shortage of Muslim editors clamouring that Islam is the one eternal true religion and hence has no founder. The current world religion of Hinduism is essentially (99%?) Vedanta, re-modelled into Pauranic Hinduism and partly transformed by the Bhakti movement. It would be perfectly accurate to consider Adi Shankara the founding figure of all that. Obviously, Shankara had earlier traditions, just like every other religious founding figure in world history. I am sorry, but you clearly have no idea of religious history. "It's the world's oldest religion" may be a satisfactory phrasing for "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism", but certainly not for Misplaced Pages. Don't you realize how your sources tend to cluster around the "Hindu zealot blog" and the "Hinduism for Dummies" pop-literature poles? Misplaced Pages doesn't aim to belong to either. I have also reviewed your Klostermaier reference now. Lol, it is published by "SUNY Press", and on the same page 1 also claims that Hinduism is the "numerically largest" religion. Wow. If you are so fond of Klostermaier, why aren't you revert-warring for the claim that "Hinduism is the numerically largest religion" along with "oldest", since both claims are found right next to one another in KK's book? dab (𒁳) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Hinduism" isn't even a native term - well I agree with you on that, its obvious. All your obvious statements are not being disputed. Sometimes you misunderstand and I guess that where it comes from. You should read sources right, it said one of numerically largests traditions (as to distinguish it from obscure cults or therms that are listed in your article). Yes, there are difficulties in defining "Hinduism" - I would welcome discussion and a separate section on this, as it seems to be the theme common to many sources. I do not object to "Hinduism is often presented as the "oldest religious tradition" among the world's major religious groups, or as "oldest living major tradition" " - it appears to reflect sources and satisfy me in this regard. Wikidās ॐ 16:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

then why did you stage such a hubbub over nothing at all? Are you bored or something? dab (𒁳) 17:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Section on Typology

Below is the section added from a reliable source to the article. Discussion is welcomed - this section does not deal with History of Hinduism but rather with types of Hinduism making it clear for anyone as to the structure to the variety. (Oxford Handbook on religion and emotion 2007)

Typology

There are six major types or traditions in Hinduism and a number of minor forms. Of the major types the oldest is Hindu folk religion, which is represented in the worship of local deities or other sanctified forms. It is normally handed down in oral tradition and there is an emotional element that plays a considerable role it it. Second major part is Vedic Hinduism, which is based or recorded in Hindu scriptures, specifically Vedic texts of which the most important one is Rig Veda. The third type is Vedantic Hinduism and is related to Upanishads. The yogic Hinduism forms the forth type and is often represented, but not limited to the yogic sūtras of Patanjali. The last two traditions are based on tapasya, or austerity as an element of its practice. The firth type of Hindu tradition is dharmic Hinduism, sometimes referred or called as a daily morality, while this type is widespread today, it speaks a little about specific beliefs of people. The six type of Hinduism is refereed as bhakti or devotionalism.

Requested move

• Historical Vedic religion → Vedic Hinduism —(Discuss)— clarity and consistency with Hinduism article. --Wikidās ॐ 16:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

At the moment the article is named as if Vedic Religion is an alternative to Hinduism. However, "Vedic religion is seen not as an alternative to Hinduism, but as its earliest extant form." ("JSTOR: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 1984 ), pp. 234-236". www.jstor.org.). That is is the main reason for the move. Wikidās ॐ 05:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from WP:RM by User:JPG-GR) oppose, bogus suggestion per article talkpage. dab (𒁳) 16:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:Historical Vedic religion#Requested move by User:Wikidas)

DBachmann: "Vedic" in popular Hindu usage means "cool" ?

DBachmann, is the air around Zurich warming up too fast, or are you on psychedelic substances ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jan Gonda, until his death in 1997, was for many decades the acknowledged doyen of European Indology and a prolific writer on many aspects of Hinduism. He contributed two volumes on Hinduism for a comprehensive series on ``The Religions of Mankind. His major divisions are as follows:

I. Veda and Older Hinduism

1. Vedic (and Brahmanic) Hinduism

2. Epic (and Puranic) Hinduism

II. Younger Hinduism

"Hinduism: A Short History". www.oneworld-publications.com. Retrieved 2008-07-06.

Based on that Dab is clearly overheated, and should get to the lake more often:-) Wikidās ॐ 11:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

So far two in favor of move to Vedic Hinduism. --Wikidās ॐ 11:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Defamatory sentence

Following sentence is defamatory and malicious in nature. "Historically, Hinduism in the wider sense includes Brahmanism, religions that evolved from or are based on Vedism in ancient India; in a narrower sense, it encompasses the post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions of India. Among its roots is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India."

This sentence does not make logical sense either. First there is no such thing a Brahmanism, Word Brahmanism is a slur used by Christian evangelists for Hinduism because they try to project Hinduism as a religion of Brahmins and not the rest of the Hindu society. Similarly Vedism is also an invented word and does not make sense. Second sentense "post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions " is even more ridiculous, since it implies that there was change in cultural traditions in india after the buddhism. I recommend removing the whole sentence as it is based on invented words like Brahmanism and Vedism with malicious intent. Sindhian (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the following as an example of insert replacing the statement above, that is not justifiable:

The term Hinduism is used as an umbrella designation for all traditions that declare allegiance to the Veda, however tenuous the actual connection with that body of writing might be, and however old or recent the particular branch might be. Hinduism is a family of religions, a vast and heterogenous tradition without a common leader, a common center or a common body of teachings. Early forms of Vedic religion are seen not as an alternative to Hinduism, but as its earliest form and there is little justification for the divisions found in much western scholarly writing between Vedism, Brahmanism, and Hinduism. (K. Klostermaier, K. "Hinduism: A Short History". www.oneworld-publications.com. Retrieved 2008-07-06.), ("JSTOR: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 1984 ), pp. 234-236". www.jstor.org.)

Sindhian, Let me know if this wording can be an acceptable replacement, or provide your version. Wikidās ॐ 10:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to debate. Klostermaier says "There is little justification for the divisions found in much western scholarly writing between ``Vedism, ``Brahmanism, and ``Hinduism." Which implies that words Brahmanism and Vedism are created by western and marxist scholars. In the current context this term is very controversial and considered malicious in nature as it is used to build hate against a section of Hindus (Brahmins). It is like calling catholic religion as popism or christianity as Biblism or Judiasm as Zionism(all these isms can be percieved as slurs). My understanding is that if there is a single denominator for Hinduism from ancient time to present it is the reverance in Vedas. Although all hindus believe Vedas were superceeded by Upanashids which are called Vedanta (summary of vedas or literally end of vedas). This change is important because the Upanishads were considered to explain and conclude the knowledge of Vedas. It is also incorrect to say that Hindus do not have a common leader. Advait sect which forms the bulk of Hindus have four supreme leaders in 4 different geographical regions called Shankaracharya who preside over an religious institution called maths. Simailarly Dvaits and other sects have their religious heads and institutions. Just like Christianity has different sects divided by philosophical difference over the interpretation of bible, hindus have different sects divided by interpretation of upanishads and Vedas. Therefore to keep it simple and short I would suggest replacing the paragraph with following:

The term Hinduism is used as an umbrella designation for all traditions that declare reverance to the Vedas and belief in Upanishads. Like Christianity, Hinduism as a term can can be applied to a number of religious sects which are seperated by philospohical differences over the interpretation of its holy books i.e Vedas and Upanishads (See Hindu Philosophy) Each sect may also have its own Purana not accepted by other sects. Most of the Hindu sects can be classified between monistic Advaita and theistic Dvaita schools. Sindhian (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You said that there is a single denominator to Hinduism, yes its true. You said that all Hindus believe Vedas were superceeded by Upanashids - that is not so, some traditions are vaidic - see Shrauta. Interesting to notice how you compare Zionism with Brahmanism, not that much but it has its connotations. Actually first Moguls, were exploiting hate against brahmins because of degraded version of cast system. Theory of arian invasion and separation of Vedism into a separate religion is credit to British Raj researchers, only sometimes used by Marxists. Wikidās ॐ 14:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Zionists were a political movement, but these days Zionism is an anti-semitic slur used to imply the the "jewish conspiracy". Similarly brahmanism was invented by britishers and missionaries to create a rift in hindus. I also don't agree with your sentence "Moguls, were exploiting hate against brahmins". This is not true as there is no evidance of hate against brahmins in Mughal period. anti-brahminism is a missionary introduced doctrine. In any case that is not important. Most europen colonizers had a habit of magnifying the evils of their colonies. While it is true that there was castism in Indian society but one could argue that some form of castism was there in almost all developed or non tribal societies. In japan there were Samurais and Peasants and Samurai's have a record of exploiting and mistreating peasants. for example samurai had a right to kill any peasant who he felt was disrespectfull. Samurais would raid peasents and rape and pillage them.

Similarly most of the european society was divided into Nobles and peasants. There are so many movies which show the discrimination of these peasants by nobles. Sindhian (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Also Shrauta are a fringe group just like GNOSTIC CHRISTIANS, so we should not consider that as a major diviation from what I said . Sindhian (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would still request you to remove the references to Brahmanism and Vedism. It does not make sence to use these clearly controvercial words in the headlines of a religion. definitionof Hinduism like other religions should be based on what its adherants believe it is and not what its critics believe it is. Sindhian (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Brahmanism and Vedism are just terms refering to periods of Hinduism, I agree that they many not be the best terms used. Please propose your option of the lead and we can take a vote on it. Unlike Christianity, there is much more tolerances to different schools of thought in Hinduism, which is good. Do you have a proposal? Post it here and we will have a look at it. Wikidās ॐ 16:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the wiki article on Christianity and compare it with Hinduism you will see that Hinduism Article looks like a mess. Like Christianity, Hinduism too is a complex religion so it is impossible to put all information of hinduism in a single article. What should be covered in the main Hinduism article is only things which are common to most of the Hindu sects and are not controvercial.

I would like to contribute to this Article and try to make it better but I see it has been locked and only some editors are allowed to edit, which I feel is odd. Please give me access to the article and I can help.

Coming back to the article I don't understand the justification of the following sentence in the heading of Hinduism.

Early forms of Vedic religion are seen not as an alternative to Hinduism, but as its earliest form and there is little justification for the divisions found in much western scholarly writing between Vedism, Brahmanism, and Hinduism., Historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India, is at its roots.

What is the purpose of this sentense. No body in India and most of the world thinks Vedic religion was an alternative to Hinduism. There is no such controversy at present. It is a refutation by a western historian of a erronous belief of some western historians more than 80 years back. Very few people have heard of the invented and meaningless terms of Brahmanism or Vedism.

Similarly the sentense "Hinduism is often presented as the "oldest religious tradition" among the world's major religious groups, or as "oldest living major tradition"

Why is said as "often presented"? Who is presenting it as such ? Or is it only a few people are presenting it as such and rest do not agree? Is there a controversy arround this? Is it wrong to just say "Hinduism is one of the oldest religious tradition". This is complicating a simple senten which could havebeen written as "Hinduism is one of the oldest living religious tradition".

Similarly "Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, and atheism. It is sometimes referred to as henotheistic (i.e., involving devotion to a single god while accepting the existence of others), but any such term is an overgeneralization." creates more confusion than provides information. This could have been written in a much simpler way Sindhian (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result pending

it does not meet the following good article attributes.

It is not well written: (a) the prose is not clear. For exapmle it says": "Hinduism is often presented as the "oldest religious tradition" among the world's major religious groups, or as "oldest living major tradition" in the lead section. therefore creates confusion about Why is said as "often presented"? Who is presenting it as such ? Or is it only a few people are presenting it as such and rest do not agree? Is there a controversy arround this? This is complicating a simple sentence which could havebeen written as "Hinduism is one of the oldest living religious tradition"

(b) it does not comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation For exaple it has two of the following sentenses in the lead section : Early forms of Vedic religion are seen not as an alternative to Hinduism, but as its earliest form and there is little justification for the divisions found in much western scholarly writing between Vedism, Brahmanism, and Hinduism., Historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India, is at its roots. This is a clear attempt to inply a POV and to introduce an unneccessary contradiction. It is not factually accurate and verifiable: For example : Other major scriptures include the Tantras, the sectarian Agamas, the Purāṇas, and the epics Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa. The Bhagavad Gītā, a treatise from the Mahābhārata, spoken by Krishna, is sometimes called a summary of the spiritual teachings of the Vedas.

There is a implied POV that Tantras are more prominant than rest of the scriptures, which is incorrect. Bhagavad Gītā and Ramayana are the most prominant of other scriptures. There are a lot of other inaccuracies which need to be corrected.

It is not broad in its coverage: (a) it does not addresses the main aspects of the topic properly ; and (b) it does not stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). For example "Other countries with large Hindu populations include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Canada and the USA."

What does this have to do with the topic of Hinduism and how can this be justified in the lead section of hinduism.

It is not neutral: it does not represent viewpoints fairly and without bias. For example The Grihastha Dharma recognize four goals known as the puruṣhārthas. They are:kāma: Sensual pleasure and enjoyment Artha: Material prosperity and success .

This is again an implied POV with intent of bringing disrepute. It is not stable: it has changed a lot in recent times and lot of implied POV with malicious intent are added. A group of editors have taken over the page and have stopped others from editing by locking it over.

Please see the talk page of the article. Sindhian (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks that after a few edits by you we are back on track to feature article, are we? It all looks makable. Just a question of actual work of doing it? Wikidās ॐ 00:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Another example of delibrate defamatory propaganda against hinduism

The Grihastha Dharma recognize four goals known as the puruṣhārthas. They are:

kāma: Sensual pleasure and enjoyment Artha: Material prosperity and success Dharma: Correct action, in accordance with one's particular duty and scriptural laws Moksha: Liberation from the cycle of samsara

Please pay attention first to the order in which it is written. It is trying to imply that The first goal of life of a Hindu is to indulge in Sensual pleasure and enjoyment and second is to get Material prosperity and success.

Besides the meaning of kama is out of context. Calling Kama "Sensual pleasure and enjoyment" as well as putting it on the top of the list amounts to inducing a false meaning Please look at for the correct definition as follows. "The householder strives to fulfill the four purusharthas, "human goals" of righteousness, wealth, pleasure and liberation. While taking care of one's own family is most central, it is only part of this dharma's expectations. " Sindhian (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So are you planning to change it or what? We are all waiting for the actual "editing time". Wikidās ॐ 00:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Typology Section

Thanks for enabling the edit previlages. I have made only a few changes although I feel a lot can be changed. Because I want to be able to manage the discussion.

I also object to the typology section it says " It is normally handed down in oral tradition and an emotional element plays a considerable role it." The reference to this sction is again an insignificant western scholar. This is a ridiculous commentry on a great religion by a Western scholar who does not seem to understand Hinduism well. Sindhian (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Encyclopedia Britannica
2. Kenoyer 1998, pp. 180–183 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKenoyer1998 (help)
3. World Faiths - Hinduism
4. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia. Merriam-Webster. 2000. p. 751.
5. Encyclopedia Britannica
6. Kenoyer 1998, pp. 180–183 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKenoyer1998 (help)
7. World Faiths - Hinduism
8. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia. Merriam-Webster. 2000. p. 751.
9. Klostermaier 1994, p. 1 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKlostermaier1994 (help)
10. Osborne 2005, p. 9 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFOsborne2005 (help)
11. "Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents". Adherents.com. Retrieved 2007-07-10.
12. J. McDaniel Hinduism, in John Corrigan, The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Emotion, 2007, Oxford University Press, 544 pages, pp. 52-53 ISBN 0195170210

• Good article reassessment nominees
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Philosophy and religion good articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• GA-Class India articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• GA-Class Nepal articles
• Unknown-importance Nepal articles
• WikiProject Nepal articles
• GA-Class Hinduism articles
• Top-importance Hinduism articles