Talk:Hinduism/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Nasadiya Sukta

I've removed the following text:

"The Rig Veda, the oldest scripture and the mainstay of Hindu philosophy does not take a restrictive view on the fundamental question of God and the creation of universe. It rather lets the individual seek and discover answers in the quest of life."

• "Oldest scripture'" - undisputed; repeated now in article as "The Nasadiya Sukta (Creation Hymn) of the Rig Veda is one of the earliest texts (Flood 1996 p.226)"
• "The mainstay of Hindu philosophy" - unsourced, and quetionable. The Upanishads and Brahma Sutras are more likely candidates for this designation.
• "does not take a restrictive view on the fundamental question of God and the creation of universe. It rather lets the individual seek and discover answers in the quest of life." - not in source (IndianTimes); IndianTimes and Flood speak about it as "speculation", as in "speculative thought", as opposed to "systematical thought."

Instead, I've added Flood as reference for "speculative". I've also changed "The One (God)" to "The One"; the addition of "God" is already an interpretation. The IndianTimes even states explicitly that the speculation about the One came before the rise of the Gods. there's probably a lot of literature on the interpretation of "the One". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarity

Hi,

IMHO Can the article be made simple and easy to read and understand for anyone who wants to understand Hinduism. I would suggest that the basic, common features of the different Hindu traditions (or at least most of them) practised across South Asia (including comparatively nondescript states and regions) should be spoken of first, like the Description, the Etmology, the History and the Religious practises and beliefs. Then the rest of the details should be mentioned.

Also Veda Vyasa and Adi Shankara Acharya who had major roles to play in the growth of Hinduism (by compiling the Vedas and writing the epic including the Gita and by founding the four Maths or monasteries and countering Buddhism across South Asia, respectively) aren't spoken of much. Most of the sources are secondary but I am sure that Hinduism can be understood more by quoting about Shanatana Dharma from the Vedas and the epics themselves. Also many scholars, from Adi Shankara to Swami Vivekananda, including others, have written commentaries about Vedanta. Even these could help the reader understand Hinduism. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This is correct, we haven't spoken not even a single time about any one like Vashistha, Parashara, Vyasa, Badarayana. They are from 4th millenium BCE - 2nd millenium BCE, Badarayana being 500 BCE though. There is a need to highlight each of them. And then, even the modern scholars. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to give sources plus a short contextualization for "The same hymn also speaks of the concept of monotheism". It looks like an interpretation to me; and even if this is the common understanding in either Hinduism itself, or by scholars, it should be referenced, otherwise it might be seen as WP:OR. The contextualization is also relevant in regard to the self-understanding of Hinduism, because it gives very relevant information about the understanding of the Vedas in later Hinduism (or Vedanta, to be more precise - which of course is (part of) Hinduism). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Jainism and Buddhism are no less part of Hinduism or Indian traditions than Shankara and Ramanuja. Originators of those traditions are also Hindu avatars. By the way, it may not be proper to give too much prominence to Shankara in this article on Hinduism. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's interesting (Shankara). Could you explain more? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

North to South sentence

Hi JJ. Instead of citing 49 pages for Samuel, can you provide specific quotes? Also, some aspects of Hinduism spread from South to North, such as the bhakti movement. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Referring to your recent edit, you will be adding note for all? You know this article is already very huge. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha, good point! I'm referring to the initial "Brahmanic synthesis". I'll provide specific quotes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

During breakfast, I've been scrolling through Samuel. It does not provide "easy" soundbites; actually it should be read as a whole (it's a very good book; I can really recommand it). Samuel describes the developments of Indo-Aryan/Vedic religion and culture in the western and central Ganges plain, and how these developments took somewhat different trajectories in those two areas. The western area gave birth to the "Brahmanic cultural complex", the central area to Buddhism and Jainism. These two complexes spread south, the "Bcc" developing into what we now call Hinduism (and I'm really starting to think that we can't see those two "cultural complexes" as separate uinverses: they are closely intertwingled, up to the disappearance of Buddhism from India. But that's my personal thought):

"By the first and second centuries CE, the Dravidian-speaking regions of the south were also increasingly being incorporated into the general North and Central Indian cultural pattern, as were parts at least of Southeast Asia. The Pallava kingdom in South India was largely Brahmanical in orientation although it included a substantial Jain and Buddhist population, while Indic states were also beginning to develop in Southeast Asia." (Samuel (2010) p.199)

Not the best quote yet, but it shows the direction. Note, also, that this is not only about "religion"; it's also about population-growth, changing societies, and the organisation or division of society. North-India developed the first urban centers (the so-called "Second Urbanisation"); the "models" invented there spread to other parts of the subcontinent. Best regards, and thanks for the invitation to further inquire on the topic. I'll search for more later; work is waiting now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nanda Empire had Pakistan, Shimla. 5th-4th Century BCE old empire Bladesmulti (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There are (still? in the sense of "since centuries") Hindus in Afghanistan; I've met some myself. That's a nice irony: the Greater India concept originates in the spread of this Brahmanical-Buddhist (Buddhist-Brahmanical? ;) ) cultural complex, that is, in the acknowledgement that parts of India and Sout-East Asia once were not in the fold of this BBCC, the precessor (singular! but that's my interpretation, though based on Samuel (2010)) of contemporary Hinduism and Buddhism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes the Greater India is the true India for thousands of years, it was relevant even till 15th century. Not really after that though. What is BBCC? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I used to many (). "Brahmanical-Buddhist cultural complex" (or "Buddhist-Brahmanical cultural complex", depending on your preferences. But that last remark is a joke; don't take it serious). You know, I think that nobody who's studying Indian culture will deny that India had an immense influence on the rest of Asia. Your remark "Not really after that though" is interesting; it reminds me of Turkey, which was a mighty empire until the 16th century, just like India; then it lost power and territory to Europe, in an incredible short span of time. I guess that this same "loss of power" is the fuel for this narrative about the ancient roots of Hinduism. Nobody is denying, though, that Hinduism, or the Indian culture, has very ancient roots. But it's too simple too equate it all to one source, or "pure origin"; history is simply (...) too complex for that. Carl Jung, the psychologist, visited Africa in the beginning of the 20th century. He was vividly aware of the richness of the African culture, and the "loss of soul" which was dawning because of the forces of modernization. And you know, this same "loss of soul" is also an issue in the western world; that's a major reason why there is so much interest in the west in Buddhism and Hinduism. Unfortunately, we can't let go of our intellectual background: analytical, critical, dissecting. It leads to a "disenchantment" of the world. India is also confronted with modernization and "disenchantment", in the aftermath of colonial suppression. It explains the strong disputes, I think, at the Wikipedia-pages. I'm sorry for that; and yet, I too can't let go of this background, because critical thinking also gives insight and understanding. In the end, I think, it comes down to living with uncertainty and 'loving thou neighbour'. That's Christian, but it's also Hindu, isn't it? And it's also Buddhist. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Citations are extremely bad

I chanced upon this article, and I find it difficult to follow many citations for two reasons.

The first issue is that some books/articles cited are not even listed in full. For example, (Samuel 2010 or Flood 1996)---it is not clear what this is---a book? an article? What is the title of the book? Publisher? Maybe somewhere among the list of citations there is more information, but this is not very professional. Many others do have proper citations (Knott 1998 for example) though.

The second issue is the multiplicity of some citations, potentially because of many editors. Some sources are cited multiple times often adjacent to each other. It may help to consolidate the citations and provide full citations where needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.61.47 (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I've added full book-titles to the note where "Flood 1996" etc. was used. Regarding the multiciplicuty, many pieces of information are potentially controversial, and therefor have a separate reference. That's also the reason why there are so many notes: some editors are not satisfied with "Cambridge University Press" etc., and prefer full quotes. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

North to South sentence

Hi JJ. Instead of citing 49 pages for Samuel, can you provide specific quotes? Also, some aspects of Hinduism spread from South to North, such as the bhakti movement. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Referring to your recent edit, you will be adding note for all? You know this article is already very huge. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha, good point! I'm referring to the initial "Brahmanic synthesis". I'll provide specific quotes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

During breakfast, I've been scrolling through Samuel. It does not provide "easy" soundbites; actually it should be read as a whole (it's a very good book; I can really recommand it). Samuel describes the developments of Indo-Aryan/Vedic religion and culture in the western and central Ganges plain, and how these developments took somewhat different trajectories in those two areas. The western area gave birth to the "Brahmanic cultural complex", the central area to Buddhism and Jainism. These two complexes spread south, the "Bcc" developing into what we now call Hinduism (and I'm really starting to think that we can't see those two "cultural complexes" as separate uinverses: they are closely intertwingled, up to the disappearance of Buddhism from India. But that's my personal thought):

"By the first and second centuries CE, the Dravidian-speaking regions of the south were also increasingly being incorporated into the general North and Central Indian cultural pattern, as were parts at least of Southeast Asia. The Pallava kingdom in South India was largely Brahmanical in orientation although it included a substantial Jain and Buddhist population, while Indic states were also beginning to develop in Southeast Asia." (Samuel (2010) p.199)

Not the best quote yet, but it shows the direction. Note, also, that this is not only about "religion"; it's also about population-growth, changing societies, and the organisation or division of society. North-India developed the first urban centers (the so-called "Second Urbanisation"); the "models" invented there spread to other parts of the subcontinent. Best regards, and thanks for the invitation to further inquire on the topic. I'll search for more later; work is waiting now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nanda Empire had Pakistan, Shimla. 5th-4th Century BCE old empire Bladesmulti (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There are (still? in the sense of "since centuries") Hindus in Afghanistan; I've met some myself. That's a nice irony: the Greater India concept originates in the spread of this Brahmanical-Buddhist (Buddhist-Brahmanical? ;) ) cultural complex, that is, in the acknowledgement that parts of India and Sout-East Asia once were not in the fold of this BBCC, the precessor (singular! but that's my interpretation, though based on Samuel (2010)) of contemporary Hinduism and Buddhism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes the Greater India is the true India for thousands of years, it was relevant even till 15th century. Not really after that though. What is BBCC? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I used to many (). "Brahmanical-Buddhist cultural complex" (or "Buddhist-Brahmanical cultural complex", depending on your preferences. But that last remark is a joke; don't take it serious). You know, I think that nobody who's studying Indian culture will deny that India had an immense influence on the rest of Asia. Your remark "Not really after that though" is interesting; it reminds me of Turkey, which was a mighty empire until the 16th century, just like India; then it lost power and territory to Europe, in an incredible short span of time. I guess that this same "loss of power" is the fuel for this narrative about the ancient roots of Hinduism. Nobody is denying, though, that Hinduism, or the Indian culture, has very ancient roots. But it's too simple too equate it all to one source, or "pure origin"; history is simply (...) too complex for that. Carl Jung, the psychologist, visited Africa in the beginning of the 20th century. He was vividly aware of the richness of the African culture, and the "loss of soul" which was dawning because of the forces of modernization. And you know, this same "loss of soul" is also an issue in the western world; that's a major reason why there is so much interest in the west in Buddhism and Hinduism. Unfortunately, we can't let go of our intellectual background: analytical, critical, dissecting. It leads to a "disenchantment" of the world. India is also confronted with modernization and "disenchantment", in the aftermath of colonial suppression. It explains the strong disputes, I think, at the Wikipedia-pages. I'm sorry for that; and yet, I too can't let go of this background, because critical thinking also gives insight and understanding. In the end, I think, it comes down to living with uncertainty and 'loving thou neighbour'. That's Christian, but it's also Hindu, isn't it? And it's also Buddhist. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@ JJ

Not the best quote yet, but it shows the direction. Note, also, that this is not only about "religion"; it's also about population-growth, changing societies, and the organisation or division of society.

If you are not been able to find best quotes related to religion, then it would be better to remove this objectionable sentence regarding north to south. The source should directly support the content and I don't think that the quote posted by you does that. -Yoonadue (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added references and notes. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have read the newly added notes. But they are not much different from what you have mentioned here earlier in this section. Lets take Gavin Flood's note :

Gavin Flood: "The process of Sanskritization only began to significantly influence the south after the first two centuries CE and Tamil deities and forms of worship became adapted to northern Sanskrit forms."

It talks about Sanskritization in south. The same source says Sanskritization happened in North as well. But what about "spread of Hinduism"? It doesn't describe any spread of Hinduism religion to south India. -Yoonadue (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

a fusion of Arian and Dravidian cultures?

No word called ARYAN or ARIAN in vedic scriptures, the Correct term comes from the Indian Sanskrit word ARYA, Oxford dictionary also states this.

Also At the beginning of this page could you explain to the readers that the Text are & teachings are first passed down by oral tradition, Then in 1,200bc text starts to get written down and recorded down the history of time.

The writer of the The Buddhism page has written this, also Judaism page so i think the hindu page should by far have this added into the section as it is the very core of the start of Hinduism via The mantras82.38.161.217 (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Veda

I agree, we should instead add "fusion of different cultures", at least on lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thats more than acceptable thank you baldesmulti82.38.161.217 (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)veda

Added "multiple cultures", rest is described on article body anyway. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And changed a direct quote. I've corrected the spelling. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Add "indo-aryan"? Bladesmulti (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have expanded the note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The misconception that "Aryans" came to India has long been debunked. Kanchanamala (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Get real, and read some descent books. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, this is how everyone will act. The theory was made by 19th century, and today no one accepts it. So what is the point? You saw your talk page too, right? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The word 'fusion' is not used by Lockard (source) in the book. I think this is definitely unnecessary to describe that controversial Aryan-Dravidian theory in the lead. The word 'Fusion' indicates 50-50 share of Aryan and Dravidian cultures, but such kind of language is not used in the source. -Yoonadue (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, it seems like it has been only used for combining such thought, nothing else really. Sometimes we have to summarize ourselves though, but this seems huge claim. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• Regarding the Aryan migration, the statement that "no one accepts it" is plain nonsense. It's not accepted by some people, who don't seem to care about modern scholarship.
• Regarding "that controversial Aryan-Dravidian theory", it's controversial for the same group of people. There is a broad scholarly concensus that Hinduism is the result of a fusion of various strands of Indian culture, and a relatively recent fusion. See note 4, which mentions more sources. See also User:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism#Fusion for extensive quotes.
• Regarding the term "fusion", other terms being used are "synthesis" (Lockard 2007 p.52), "Hindu synthesis" (Hiltebeitel 2002), and "classical synthesis" (Samuel 2010).
• Hinduism being a "synthesis" or "fusion" of several strands of Indian culture, is such a basic and essential feature of Hinduism, and such a basic aspect of the scholarly understanding of Hinduism, that it's one of the essential facts to mention about Hinduism. Ask yourself a simple question: how do we explain the immense diversity of Hinduism? Rigth, here's the answer. If you think it's a "huge claim", you show a basic lack of knowledge about the history of Hinduism , and about modern scholarship on the history of Hinduism.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So which one is it? Is Hinduism homogenized because of "Sanskrization" or is it diverse? The reason you are contradicting yourself, because you have never been to India, let alone travelled India. Secondly, I highly doubt "Aryan and Dravidian cultures" refers to Aryan migration theory. This is similar to Paul B's misunderstanding of genetic studies. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there has been a lot of undiscussed editing by JJ from this edit (dated 20 November) onwards and it seems to have taken the shape of vandalism. JJ has managed to find a single source in the form of Lockard to justify large chunks of additions to this article. The word 'Fusion' is not used in the context of Hinduism religion. JJ should read those quotes again. Also, Lockard is not reliable for this encyclopedia. JJ should consider reading his works thoroughly before calling him a 'universal scholar'. Moreover other stuff like North-east, Shramana and local traditions being the direct roots of Hinduism are still very poorly sourced. No such quotations have been provided which were asked for in an earlier discussion. Also, terms like "Hindu synthesis" and "emphasis on the status of Brahmins" is a clean example of pov editing. Such negative terms are not supposed to be added in the lead of the article.

The lead of the article should be short and shall not include such mass information. The problem with these recent edits by JJ is that the controversial views are being presented as universal.

As far as Aryan-Dravidian issue is concerned, its a very controversial theory and completely opposite theories are also present which have been supported by some modern historians as well. Such aryan-dravidian content may be apt for articles like Indo-Aryan migration and Indigenous Aryans, but its completely inappropriate for the lead of this article. Such kind of content will make this article confusing and will question reliability of our encyclopedia. In my opinion the article should be reverted to the previous version of this edit. JJ should first discuss each content one by one before adding anything. -Yoonadue (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I consider the use of the term "vandalism" to be a personal attack and a breach of WP:GOODFAITH, and close to trolling. The term "Hindu synthesis" reflects a broad scholarly consensus. Regarding the quotes, I've pointed before to User:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism where extensive quotes are given, though I doubt that you're serious willing to read those quotes. I get the impression that you're not willing to engage in discussion, but only searching for rhetorics to push your personal point of view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yoonadue, honestly you might won't have any bad intention, but the way you are presenting is pretty strange, like JJ points. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Calling an editor a vandal after being blocked for doing just that is such a bad idea. I've given him 72 hours timeout to think about it. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The difference between Aryans and Dravidians is simply a linguistic fact. See Dravidian languages. There's nothing remotely controversial about it at all. This is part of the problem with discussions in this area. There is so much half-digested commentary on semi-garbled versions of supposed controversy that the real issues just get lost in the confusion. Yes, it's an over-simplification to say that Hiduism is a mix of "Aryan" and "Dravidian", (after all there's Munda too), but it's a fairly clear way of summing up the fusion of cultures. Even the anti-"Aryan Invasion" people don't dispute that Vedic culture expanded from the Indus to what we now call "India" as a whole, and that as it did so it absorbed local cults and traditions that were integrated into Brahmin-based religious practices. I fail to understand why phrases like "Hindu synthesis" and "emphasis on the status of Brahmins" are "negative". Only the real extremists whop believed the Vedas date from the Stone Age and the Dravidian languages were invented by a Brahmin dispute that there has been a mutual influence of Aryan and Dravidian traditions. Paul B (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The page in current form, is not problematic at all. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Belated reply to 176.67.169.146

• "Is Hinduism homogenized because of "Sanskrization" or is it diverse?" - It's not a matter of "homogenization"; that's not what's being meant with "fusion" or "synthesis", as far as I can see. It means that groups of people have adapted to Brahmanical ideas, but it does not mean that all Indians have, or have ever had, exactly the same religious faiths and beliefs.
• "I highly doubt "Aryan and Dravidian cultures" refers to Aryan migration theory." - I have a serious problem understanding what's being said here. From what I understand about it, Indo-Aryans migrated to (north-western) India, bringing with them their language and religion, approximately around 1500 BCE. Indian had been populated then for millennia already. When the Indo-Aryans moved further east, into the Ganges Plain, around 1000 BCE, they changed to an agrarian way of living, founding one of the earliest "states"/kingdoms of India (Kuru kingdom), adapting their religious system and introducing the Varna-system to "manage" their new-born kingdom and its various cultural and ethnic groups.(Samuel 2010) This system worked remarkably well to provide stability, though another variety developed at the central Ganges Plain, where Buddhism and Jainism developed at about 600-500 BCE, and kshatriyas had the hisghest status. When Buddhism became the "state religion" of the Mauryan empire and subsequent states and empires, the Brahmanical/Vedic religion was further developed, to incorporate shramanic elements, and local cults and religions, of Dravidian origin. This "synthesis" worked, remained part of norhtern Indian culture, and spread further south and east. It was only at the 8th century that Buddhism lost its position at the highest royal courts, and was replaced by the Brahmanical/Hindu religion.

As far as I can see, India is a very complicated society, with an incredible rich and varied history. As a relative outsider, I can afford the luxury to rely on scholarly sources. I really have a hard time trying to understand why other editors don't rely on the same sources, but instead cling to specific, partisan interpretations of Indian history and religion. There's no reason, to my opinion, to ignore this diversity and richness. Be proud of it! But please, be also realistic: "reality", or history, may not be as "simple" or "monolithic" as you think.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What diversity and richness Joshua Jonathan? If you actually travelled to India from North to South, you would know that Hinduism is for the most part exactly the same, except for maybe the styles of the temples and idols. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I apologize to JJ and others for such an uncivilized behavior. But I just want to raise a valid point.

Among the recent additions by JJ to the lead is: "From northern India this "Hindu synthesis", and its societal divisions, spread to southern India.[35][36]" This sentence is exactly contrary to another theory which says Hinduism is indigenous to South India. Why is such a controversial sentence being added to the lead of this article?

In an earlier discussion, JJ was asked to provide proper quotations from the sources. But unfortunately still I can't see much here. All these points regarding religions of Indus valley, Adivasis, local traditions, and north-east India being the direct roots of Hinduism are still very poorly sourced. They are confusing for this article. And such points are disputed also. -Yoonadue (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but after facing so many reliable sources he has tried to make as neutral point as he could. But anyways, if we hatch out all of the information from lead, what should be written on the body.. Can you compose your own version in your commons/sandbox? It would be far better idea, so we can know what you want. Just like JJ did composed his own sandbox for a version, and details. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Firtly the word "Hindu" comes from the "Indus", so I don't see how "[H]indus-ism" can be indigenous to South India. That's not to say that many of the features we identify as part of pan-Indian "Hinduism" are not indigenous to the South, and indeed may have originated there. That's what the whole "fusion of Aryan and Dravidian" concept means. This is part of the problem with this debate. We have the IP insisting that the whole Aryan-Dravidian difference is a chimera, and now we have another editor insisting that Hinduism is indigenous to the (Dravidian) south. If so, where did the Vedas come from? So in reality there is no contradiction at all between the views you describe. Why do you think the claim that Vedic culture cvomes from the North is poorly sourced? It's pretty much accepted by all sources, even Hindutva ones. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

North to south, simple as that. Since it was all part of Hindu civilization, obviously no hindutva and outsiders would deny, those who claims against these agreements(of both sides) are having obvious bad faith and hidden agenda. We are done with this one. Yoondaue will have to show his own page version(that he will make in sandbox) and the ip you mentioned must show the email, sources, to which he referred, he hasn't presented yet though. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

PaulB, according to Flood, "The actual term 'hindu' first occurs as a Persian geographical term for the people who lived beyond the river Indus." See page 6 of Introduction to Hinduism.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It comes from "Sindhu" which refers to the Indus river. Paul B (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Paul B

Firstly the word "Hindu" comes from the "Indus", so I don't see how "[H]indus-ism" can be indigenous to South India.

The theory I am referring to is Indigenous Aryans which simply says that Hinduism is indigenous to both North and South India. The only difference b/w north and south as already discussed above is linguistic. Read this. Just because Hinduism is prominent in both North and South India doesn't make it a fusion of aryan and dravidian cultures. Actually the Hindus of south India follow the same religion. They get married with the help of Brahmins doing Sanskrit rituals. Their religious scriptures are also Vedas, Mahabharata, Ramayana which are originally Sanskrit texts. They also follow caste system and various Brahmin communities form an integral part of south Indian society.

Why do you think the claim that Vedic culture comes from the North is poorly sourced

Firstly there is nothing like non-vedic Hinduism. Hinduism is vedic everywhere from Kashmir to South India. The point I am referring as poorly sourced is that Hinduism is From northern India this "Hindu synthesis", and its societal divisions, spread to southern India.[35] Presence of such content in the lead is like accepting the agenda of Dravidian politics that Hinduism used to be an alien religion for south India at a time and it got spread in south in some later age. The opposite theory says the history of Hinduism in south goes as long as it goes in case of north.

@ Bladesmulti

I am not going to create any sandbox. As I have already suggested, the article should be reverted to the previous version of this edit and JJ should first discuss each point one by one.

@ JJ

Your edits indicate that Hinduism is not a specific religion but a mixture of religions. As per your edits, this mixture contains dravidian, mongoloid, adivasi, north-east, austric elements. Then let us know what does Hinduism take from these multiple traditions so as to term them as "among the direct roots of Hinduism"? You should give some description of that. Wikipedia is not that kind of encyclopedia that someone find a source and write an entire article on that basis of that. Certain points like this need to be discussed.

My opinion:- Hinduism is very much a specific religion. Just because Hinduism is also found among the south Indians, Mongoloid people of Nepal, Bali and austric-speaking people of India, doesn't mean that that these traditions are the direct roots of Hinduism. They have inherited religion from the Hindu faith. Hinduism doesn't inherit anything significant from them. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are not going to present your idea through a sandbox, than i am highly wondering that how you want this article to be looked like. Just check the archives or this same page, we had number of issues on which we have worked on, reverting to a old version is complete loss, and not a progress. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Bladesmulti

It won't be a complete loss as everything would still remain in the record. Th article would look like this. The lead should remain short and there should not be any section named "Roots of Hinduism" as there already exist a similar section 'History'. If JJ has anything to add, he should discuss one by one. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has got policies; one of them is WP:BOLD. If you want to change them, propose changes. But to discuss edits one-by-one because you've got a problem named WP:IDONTLIKEIT, that's not how Wikipedia works. My edits are referenced, by reliable sources, reflecting commonly accepted mainstream scholarship, verifiable to anyone who's simply willing to read those sources. If you think that your opinion or personal understanding of Hinduism reflects the current scholarly insights on Hinduism and its history, surprise us, and give some very good reliable sources which we have overlooked. Otherwise, your opinion is not even WP:OR, but just that: your personal understanding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yoonadue, JJ has already discussed them. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Lede is supposed to sum up the whole article. Your comments about the "indigenous Aryans" concept just indicate the utter confusion of what you are saying. The "indigenous Aryans" argument simply claims that Vedic culture developed in India (though of course what counts as "India" is rather fluid). It's completely irrelevant to the Aryan/Dravidian distinction, since it presupposes that Vedic culture emerged in North India, probably in the Indus Valley and then spread from there. After all, the Vedas are written in Sanskrit - Indo-Aryan - not Dravidian. So by definition Dravidian peoples have to have been assimilated to Sanskrit-based texts at some point don't they? As I say, even the OIT people accept this. No-one disputes that Hinduism is native to India. You are arguing against a straw man. Indeed it is clear that you don't even understand the point that you are addressing. The fact that you link to an article on genetics just indicates how confused you are. Genetic differences and similarities between the various peoples of India have no bearing on the point at issue. How could they? Paul B (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

In mainstream scholarship, the Aryan Migration Theory is on its deathbed. David Gordon White cites 3 scholars who "have emphatically demonstrated" that Vedic religion is derived from the Indus Valley Civilizations. See pages 28 and 29 of Kiss of the Yogini. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead conflicts with what 4 mainstream scholars say, when it contrasts the Vedic religion with the Indus Valley Civilization. David Gordon White's Kiss of the Yogini cites 3 different scholars who say Vedic religion derives from Indus Valley Civilization. David Gordon White explicitly says its "quite artificial" to make a distinction between Vedic tradition and IVC. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha, I really appreciate your efforts! Thanks; they're inviting to further inquire into these topics. And, doing so, what I read at White is not that "Vedic religion derives from Indus Valley Civilization", but that "the religion of the Vedas was already a composite of the indo-Aryan and Harappan cultures and civilizations." (White p.28) Nice that you mention this; I'd mentioned something similar in regard to popular beliefs and the Yaksha cults in the Hinduism-article:

"The Vedic texts were the texts of the elite, and do not necessarily represent popular ideas or practices.(Singh 2008 p.184) The Vedic religion of the later Vedic period co-existed with local religions, such as the Yaksha cults.(Samuel 2010)(Basham 1989 p.74-75}}[1]"

Essentially, what White is saying (as far as I understand him), is that there was no "pure" Vedic religion, but that the Vedic religion already was a "composite". Which is actually not surprising, is it, when you think about? People interact, and adapt to new environments, including cultural. The moment we are discussing here, we are also interacting, and changing our minds. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Paul B

The "indigenous Aryans" argument simply claims that Vedic culture developed in India (though of course what counts as "India" is rather fluid). It's completely irrelevant to the Aryan/Dravidian distinction, since it presupposes that Vedic culture emerged in North India, probably in the Indus Valley and then spread from there.

I am sorry but the "indigenous Aryans" doesn't say suggest that Vedas originated in Indus valley.

After all, the Vedas are written in Sanskrit - Indo-Aryan - not Dravidian. So by definition Dravidian peoples have to have been assimilated to Sanskrit-based texts at some point don't they?

I disagree with you here. The recent genetic studies rejects "Dravidians" to be a different race. There is no term like Dravidian peoples. Its all about languages. Dravidian languages are of unknown origin. And the theory of spread of Aryan languages to south becomes absurd when we talk of Sinhalese and Maldivian language which are Indo-Aryan languages. If Aryan languages got spread to Sri Lanka and Maldives to that extent that today a vast majority of these countries speak Aryan languages, then how South India remained untouched by this language change? How did this happen that Hinduism religion got completely assimilated to South Indian population, without change in language? Anyone who tries to find answers for such questions can get confused if he considers Hinduism to be a religion of North India.

But actual reality is that Hinduism belongs to South India as much as it belongs to North. It need not to be spread to South India as it exists there from ancient time as long as it exists in North.

The words like 'spread' may be appropriate for southeast Asia whose history is quite clear that its people practiced animism before the arrival Hindu kings and culture which actually spread the religion in this Mongoloid region whose people are racially different from Indians.

@ JJ

You are yet to describe what elements of Dravidian, Mongoloid, Tribal, Austric and Harappan are found in Hinduism so as to describe it as a fusion of all these cultures. -Yoonadue (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Local cults and deities. See Wendy Doniger, "Other sources: the process of "Sanskritization", Encyclopædia Britannica. and Nath 2001 p.31-34. see also above, "From what I understand about it". Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yoonadue, your reply is so incoherent, it is almost pointless to respond to it, since it is clear you haven't a clue what you are talking about. You are responding to claims that no one has made, and that haven't been relevant for decades. No-one is saying that "Dravidians" are a different "race" for "Aryans". It would be like saying that the French are in some meaningful sense a different "race" than the Germans. That's completely irrelevant to the fact that as a linguistic community they obviously have a distinct ethno-linguistic origins. Likewise Dravidians are ethno-linguistically distinct from Indo-Aryans. And equally obviously Sanskrit texts originated in Sanskrit speaking communities. Most Indigenous Aryan models do indeed place the Vedic peoples in the Indus, though there are some who want to believe they originated in the Ganges. The reasons for wanting this are transparently religious, and are not supported by any significant independent commentators. Your comment about Sinhalese is as ludicrous as asking why English is spoken in Australia, but not in France, which is a lot nearer. See Mahavamsa. Paul B (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The words Aryan and Dravidian and the concept of them being exclusive date back to the nineteenth century. Arya was the word for 'noble' and Dravida was the word for 'South India' in the ancient world and not names for any race or culture. Hinduism was a synthesis of the classical (Sanskrit) and the folk. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@ JJ

Why does this article now contain so much of repetition content? The same stuff is present in the lead as well as the section "Roots of Hinduism".

@ Kanga Roo in the Zoo

This folk + classical Sanskrit theory doesn't have that acceptability that it should be described in the lead of this article. Reading the notes provided by JJ, I came across much stuff which seemed ridiculous, for example, this from Vijay Nath about Siva and Vishnu:

"Visnu and Siva, on the other hand, as integral components of the Triad while continuing to be a subject of theological speculation, however, in their subesequent avataras" began to absorb countless local cults and deities within their folds. The latter were either taken to represent the multiple facets of the same god or else were supposed to denote different forms and appellations by which the god came to be known and worshipped. Thus whereas Visnu came to subsume the cults of Narayana, Jagannatha, Venkateswara and many others, Siva became identified with countless local cults by the sheer suffixing of Isa or Isvarato the name of the local deity, e.g., Bhutesvara, Hatakesvara, Chandesvara."[2]

Narayana and Venkatashwara, which are widely accepted as forms of Vishnu are described as local Tamil deities. It would be better for us to discuss the reliability of these Dravidian historians and writers. -Yoonadue (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism was a way of life

What's the relevance of this piece of info in the lead diff, and what part of the article does it summarize? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Indian Supreme Court in the year 1995, in case of Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo observed as follows:

"No precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms 'Hindu'. 'Hindutva' and 'Hinduism'; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture and heritage. The term 'Hindutva' is related more to the way of life of the people in the sub-continent. It is difficult to say that term 'Hindutva' or 'Hinduism' per se, in the abstract can be assumed to mean and be equated with narrow fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry,..."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.100.49 (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

So, this is about Hindutva as a way of life? And still, what's the relevance to the article? There's probably a good reason that someone wants it to be included, but it's not clear yet why. Could you explain? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The word Hindu itself is imprecise. The coinage of the word Hindutva is ridiculous. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I've looked-up the link "Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Versus State of West Bengal"; it's interesting. This is the intro:

"The following is the complete text of the judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of the Ramakrishna Mission's petition to be declared a non-Hindu, minority religion, under the Indian constitution. For a full story on this, see Hinduism Today August, 1995, issue. The petition was denied. The court determined that the RK Mission is Hindu and there is no religion of "Ramakrishnaism" as claimed by them."

So, the relevant text would be that the Indian Supreme Court judged that "Ramakrishnaism" is not a separate religion. The court also judged that

""...The word `religion' has not been defined in the Constitution and it is a term which is hardly susceptible of any rigid definition."

And the part that contains "way of life":

"When we think of the Hindu religion, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to define Hindu religion or even adequately describe it. Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one God; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion of creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more."

So, what the Court says is that the Court is not able to give a definition of "Hindu religion", and that at best the Court may describe "the Hindu religion" as "a way of life". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There are many dogmas in Hinduism (including atheism) and so, if the Supreme Court of India rules that Hinduism is a way of life, it should be added in this article. I am going to re-introduce that sentence and reference shortly. What is your objection to it?—Khabboos (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a primary source; it's uncontextualised; it's not clear what's the relevance; and it does not summarize any part of the article. And the Court did not "rule"; let me repeat myself:

In the case "Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Versus State of West Bengal" the court determined that the RK Mission is Hindu and there is no religion of "Ramakrishnaism" as claimed by them. The Court also stated in this case that the Court is not able to give a definition of "Hindu religion", and that at best the Court may describe "the Hindu religion" as "a way of life".

That's what you can add - at the Ramakrishna Mission#Controversy section, after providing a contextualisation. Not in the Hinduism-article, since it is WP:UNDUE, and certainly not in the lead. It's not about Hinduism, it's about what the Court thinks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The really interesting part is: why did the RM request acknowledgement as a separate religion? The Ramakrishna Mission! Vivekananda! Was Vivekananda not a Hindu?!? That's shocking! - "The Hindu world was shocked in 1986 to learn that the RK Mission founded by Swami Vivekananda was opting out of the Hindu family to become "the cult or religion of Sri Ramakrishna" for political/economic reasons." Hinduism Today, august 1995, BREAKING NEWS AT PRESS TIME India's Supreme Court Denies RK Mission Non-Hindu Status See also Sanjeev Nayyar, August 2002, Why Did The Ramakrishna Mission Say They Are Not Hindus. What the "way of life" quote really is about is the way India deals with religion and minorities. Which is a very interesting topic on it's own, but not one that can be summarized in one single, decontextualized quote. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Aurangzeb

I have just added another reference which has snaps of Aurangzeb's orders that were issued in Persian. If it is unacceptable, please tell me why? I read the matter at Social_web#Blogs_and_wikis and feel it is not at all a blog and can be used here.—Khabboos (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

How is it not a blog? You can clearly see that it is a Blooger website so its a blog. AcidSnow (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like part of an exhibition, but it's not clear to me who's written this, and which sources are being used. There already is a source, apparently from a college; looks more trustworthy to me than aurangzeb.info/. Personally I almost always try to use books, and preferably academic books. Aurangzeb "Malik Kafur" "hindu temples" though gives only a few hits. So, I don't know; I noticed you took this source to RSN; that's good. And by the way: relax, just like I adviced AcidSnow. Enough conflict already in India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I took a further look; the page is quite detailed. It also gives some links, but I can't determine so fast if they are reliable. What you can do, though, is add a note {{refn|group=note|See also [links]}}, to provide access to this further information.

It's not reliable another user has clearly explained why at the noticeboard. AcidSnow (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

C. eliot & lead

With this edit] Khabboos added the following quote:

"More than other religions, Hinduism appeals to the soul's immediate knowledge and experience of God. It has sacred books innumerable but they agree in little but this, that the soul can come into contact and intimacy with its God, whatever name be given him and even if he be superpersonal. The possibility and truth of this experience is hardly questioned in India and the task of religion is to bring it about, not to promote the welfare of tribes and states but to effect the enlightenment and salvation of souls." (Eliot, C. Hinduism and Buddhism. London. Vol 1, Introduction. 1921 quoted Spencer)

What's the use of this quote in the lead? It does not summarize any part of the article, it's outdated, and it's WP:UNDUE. The edit-summary is also splendid:

"I'm being bold with this edit, but if someone feels it shouldn't be in the Lead, please move it (but don't remove it)"

Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia-policies, instead of ordering other editors what to do. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not ordering anyone Joshua. You added the full quote to the mysticism article and so, I thought it should be imported into this article as well. You tell me what to do, since you seem to know the rules better. Please also reply to my question in the previous section (about the reference I used for Aurangzeb's orders).—Khabboos (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The quote is useful at the mysticism-article, since it provides, to my opinion, an example of a specific interpretation of Hinduism, namely Neo-Vedanta. But to use it here may be WP:UNDUE. The problem is, I think, that Eliot is not representative of the current understanding of Hinduism. It needs contextualization: how did westerners understand Hinduism in the 19th and early 20th century, how did this understanding influence (educated) Hindus, how has the understanding of Hinduism developed since then?

Did you read the section on "Definitions", including the notes? There's a lot of info there. Read also Pizza effect; it's interesting. And if you really want to read more: [King, Richard (2001), Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and "The Mystic East", Taylor & Francis e-Library]. A pdf can be found at the web.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because something is written in a published book does not mean that it deserves to be included in the article. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sanatana Dharma

The name of this article should be "Sanatana Dharma" which is the collection of inquiry of the Munis, Rishis, Sadhus, & Yogis into Eternal Laws. Hinduism name is given by Persians. Please kindly check these links google results, google books results Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The label Sanātana Dharma is a modern coinage coined in response to the name Ārya Samāj coined by Swami Dayananda Saraswati not too long ago in the history of India. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It is mentioned now in the article, isn't it? The explanation of this term provided a means to give some counterweight to the "western", analytical approaches and descriptions, describing a little bit of how Hinduism is seen by at least a part of its adherents, while staying "faithfull" to Wikipedia's pillar of WP:RS. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This label is coined in Hindi where the word dharma is used to mean religion. Actually, there is no Indian word for religion. Dharma in Sanskrit means "principle" [as in the expression "a man of principle"] which one adopts and adheres to it [dhāraņāt-dharme-tyāhuh]. The Hindi word is used among a very small group of Hindus from the North. As for the article, I am not inclined to get directly involved in it as an editor. I just provide information for other editors to use. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sanathana Dharma means 'eternal law' and is of relatively new usage. This was sometimes called as Sanathani, to denote followers of orthodox Hinduism. Gandhi popularised the usage of this term Sanathani. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised to read some more nuances here. I just happened to read Gombrich today, Theravada Buddhism, who's got a similar remark on the relative modern use, or should I say "application", of these terms. Thanks for responding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no expression like "sanātana dharma" in Sanskrit which is governed by Panini's vyākaraņa. A dharma, which has been adopted through ages, is described as such as "eșa dharma sanātanah". By the way, in Sanskrit, dharma does not mean law, period. Kanchanamala (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Spelling Mistakes?

There seem to be some spelling mistakes in the first couple paragraphs, unless, of course, it is supposed to be spelled in British English. (Eg categorisation in the first para)

In fact it's supposed to use Indian English per the included Template:Use Indian English. Rwessel (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you are apparently aware that these spelling are correct in British English, why do you call them "mistakes" in the first place??? Paul B (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please add this somewhere: "Nowhere in the panorama of world religious traditions, from ancient times to the present, do we find such a strong presence of the feminine voice within the divinity as we do in the Hindu complex of religion."VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sanatana-Dharma and Vedika-Dharma

I've twice replaced Sivananda's "All about Hinduism"; it's an interesting book (I've got a copy in my own library), but definitely not a WP:RS. I've also twice removed Onkar Karambe's comment: it is unsourced, and WP:POV. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2014 ----- Etymology of the word "Hindu" and "Hinduism"

please change the etymology of the word Hindus,Hinduism because:

"Hindu" term is first used in Avestan language == "Hindus" is derived from a Sanskrit word "sindhus" that means "dwellers by the Indus River." The term "Hindu" is an Avestan name,it is first used in Nations of Vendidad in "Avesta"-the holy book of Zoroastrians. The writing of the Vendidad began before the formation of the Median and Persian Empires, before the 8th century B.C.E.. -here's the link: http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd1sbe.htm The term Hindus is used to refer to people living alongside river Indus in Vendidad. Hindus are numbered at 15 among 16 Aryan nations in the Vendidad, this is the first time ever the term "Hindus" is used. -here's a link depicting the 16 nations of Vendidad- "Hindus" are numbered at 15: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vendidadnations.jpg

The religious traditions of these people i.e of the "Hindus" later came to be called as "Hinduism" during the rule of British Raj .

The article has noted that Hindus is Persian word it's wrong,the name is derived from Aveatan not Persian ,the Persians have loaned it from Avestan language which is extinct now.

Rim sim (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to add info on the etymology, then please use WP:RS, and don't simply remove sourced info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor ^Sing 17:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

here's the reference of the word Hindu first being used in Avestan language to refer to people living along the river Indus

Avestan geography-it's there in Vendidad references at number 14: "Monchi-Zadeh, op. cit., p. 130; but cf. also H. Humbach, “Al-Bīrunī und die sieben Strome [sic] des Awesta,” Bulletin of the Iranian Culture Foundation I, 2, 1973, pp. 47-52" Rim sim (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply by JJ: The reference is being used as follows:

"Hapta Həndu = Sapta Sindhavaḥ, the land of seven rivers knowns as the region of Panjab (Monchi etc)". So, it's not about the Indus, let alone the people living there, and even less about those people being called "Hindus", but about "the land of the seven rivers". And the writing of the Cendidad may have started in the 8th century BCE, but this does not mean that the reference to "the land of the seven rivers" is also from the 8th century BCE. A fine piece of WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I just remembered that somethng like this was already mentioned in the article:

"According to Gavin Flood, "The actual term 'hindu' first occurs as a Persian geographical term for the people who lived beyond the river Indus (Sanskrit: Sindhu)".[55] The term 'Hindu' then was a geographical term and did not refer to a religion."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Simple Introduction to Hinduism

The introduction part of the article about Hinduism is complex & messy,it has just too many notes and references and is not simple and compact.

The American news channel CNN has published an excellent article introducing Hinduism ,

I hope the editor take notes from this article and edit the introduction part of Hinduism, it is: (1)compact with full information about Hinduism without complex words. (2)simple & to the point without any extras. (3)Introduces a non Hindu to the concept of Brahman, yoga & scriptures perfectly. (4)Is categorized as:- Statistics,Beliefs/Practices,Caste System,History.

Here's the link(reference)-- URL:[[2]] Title:"Hinduism Fast Facts"--By CNN Library Date: January 24, 2014 website: CNN

Rim sim (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

CNN probably does not have to cope with people who believe that Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, and don't believen that Brahmanism spread from the north to the south. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyways the introduction part should have been simplified, if you look at pages of other religions they are not as complex as that of Hinduism, any non Hindu who wants to know abt Hinduism would be scared away seeing the complex introduction.

Rim sim (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You've definitely got a point here. I'll take a try. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I've moved large chunks of info to notes. This means they are still accessible, but not at first sight. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

JJ, our own references say Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world. Brahmin priests still do fire rituals and ancient Vedic mantras everyday at Hindu temples all over the world. Why do you doubt Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world? Very surprised. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Read the note, and the article. Many writers write that Hinduism is "the oldest religion"; yet what we know as "Hinduism", a blend of Brahmanism and local/popular religions, emerged around the beginning of the common era, in the north of India. This "Hindu synthesis" then spread southwards into the Indian subcontinent, and eastwards into east-Asia. Besides, there are other religions which are clearly much older; the Aboriginal-religion(s?) is a better candidate for the title "oldest religion". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. See Historical Vedic religion. — goethean 14:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What is that article supposed to indicate? Brahmin priests in temples all over the world, practice historical Vedic religion. Go to a local Hindu temple, pay a couple of hundred bucks, and Brahmin priests will do a homam for you. I've personally witnessed countless number of homams all over the world. This is everyday Hinduism at temples. When new Hindu temples are built in the west, there are huge yajnas as part of the temple consecration. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the Post-Vedic_religions section within that article, which states:

The Vedic period is held to have ended around 500 BC. The period after the Vedic religion, between 800 BCE and 200 BCE, is the formative period for Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism.[3][4][5][24]...According to Muesse, some of the fundamental concepts of Hinduism, namely karma, reincarnation and "personal enlightenment and transformation", did not exist in the Vedic religion, developed between 800 BCE and 200 BCE:[5][note 5]...The Vedic religion gradually metamorphosed into the various schools of Hinduism, which further evolved into Puranic Hinduism.[30]

— goethean 18:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Fred Clothey and others have emphasized the main feature of Hinduism is ritual. I've never heard a single sermon from a Brahmin priest on karma or reincarnation in all my decades on this Earth. Brahmin priests just do rituals, including Vedic homams. Brahmin priests don't give sermons at all my friend. Hinduism is the only major religion that has preserved its ancient mode of practice. You can be a Christian, Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist and hire a Brahmin priest to do whatever Vedic ritual you want. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism is more than Brahmanic ritual. How much Tantra is there in Barhmanism? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this some sort of trick question? Brahminism is mostly tantra. The yantras under each murthi, the temple architecture etc. Did you not read that PDF I linked to on your talk page?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I may be mistaken here... Nevertheless, as far as I know Tantra is at the edge of Hindu orthodoxy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That's absolutely false. I almost fell out of my chair when I read that. Most of the rituals in a Hindu temple by Brahmin priests are done according to the agamas (tantras). Klostermaier: "Ritual is one of the most prominent and most important features of Hinduism, and it has two main sources: the Vedic and the Agamic traditions." Have you even been to a mainstream Hindu temple with Brahmin priests?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

In that case: "The Agamas are non-vedic in origin [4] and have been dated either as post-vedic texts [5] or as pre-vedic compositions.[6]" - from the lead of Āgama (Hinduism). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you even been to a mainstream Hindu temple with Brahmin priests?

This an completely inappropriate question. Completely inappropriate. Wikipedia uses reliable sources. It does not matter whether I or Joshua Jonathan have ever been to a Hindu temple or not. The use of reliable sources does not necessitate first hand experience. To write a article about praying mantises, one doesn't need to have seen a praying mantis, because Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not first-hand accounts by Wikipedia editors. Please review WP:OR and WP:V. — goethean 20:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This explains a lot. Someone who is topic banned shouldn't lecture others on Wikipedia policy. And its an academic fact documented in reliable sources that Brahman priests do most rituals via the agamas (tantras). VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC

If you don't want to hear about Wikipedia policy, then don't violate it. — goethean 21:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't take POV pushing editors seriously. All your comments on Hinduism related topics are anti-Hindu. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall asking you to evaluate my contributions. — goethean 21:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Cool down, both of you, please. I like Victoria's questions and remarks; he's also been critical toward the other side, so I really like it to see an independent-minded editor around here. Same goes for goethean: he may have had his clashes, but he does have an independent opinion.
The question, after all, was about the ancientness of Hinduism. I think it's quite clear that there are elements in it with a very ancient history. an dthat what we know as "Hinduism" is a blend of various cultures and traditions. Vedic and non-Vedic. So, Brahmanic ritual does have roots in Indi-Aryan culture, even predating the settlement of the Aryans in India. But apparently it also has other origins. By the way, the last two sentences are offending to certain groups, for various reasons. That's also why there are so many references in the lead. And probably will stay. Shall we give it a break here? Best to both of you, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Editor you will find invaluable information on what exactly lies at the core of "Hinduism" in this article from one of the greatest Hindu minds ever ,will be very helpfull for you in editing this page "Hinduism" on wiki

http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/In-Defence-of-Hinduism-by-Swami-Vivekananda-1.aspx Rim sim (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Vivekananda is definitely not WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Vivekananda is not RS. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Vivekananda is a primary source. — goethean 14:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Denomination section sourced almost entirely from ISKCON (Hare Krishna) and Divine Life Society websites

The denomination section needs be rewritten with secondary academic sources.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting question is: which classification are we to use? Shavism, Vaishnism and Shatism? Or the typologies of McDaniel and Michaels? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Shaktism.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

suggestions

i think Hindu philosophy [[3]] and Hindu mythology [[4]] can be added to the Hinduism template at the starting right of the page under Hindu History- Concepts[show]- Schools[show]- Deities[show]- Scriptures[show-] Practices[show]- Gurus, saints, philosophers[show]- Other topics.Rim sim (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

THE ORIGINAL AND COMPLETE NAME

THE ORIGINAL AND COMPLETE NAME OF HINDU DHARMA IS ""AADI SANATAN DEVI DEVATA DHARMA"".BECAUSE INDIAN WAS THE LAND OF DEITY PEOPLE(DEVI DEVATA IN HINDI)...AND THAT TIME INDIA WAS THE GOLDEN BIRD...(SONE KI CHIDIA IN HINDI).....THERE IS NO FOUNDER OF HINDU DHARMA... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.36.107 (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Also known as

"Hinduism, also known by the name Sanatana-Dharma" is a very misleading introductory statement. That's not agreed upon by many scholarly sources. In fact, one of the sources cited, actually provides a very nuanced approach to this statement. This is from EB which is cited as a source for the statement:

The term has also more recently been used by Hindu leaders, reformers, and nationalists to refer to Hinduism as a unified world religion. Sanatana dharma has thus become a synonym for the “eternal” truth and teachings of Hinduism, the latter conceived of as not only transcendent of history and unchanging but also as indivisible and ultimately nonsectarian.

That's clearly not an endorsement for "also known as". I'd like to move this out of the lede to the body of the article and provide the more nuanced approach that most scholarly sources provide. —SpacemanSpiff 17:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Funny, the gentleman above clearly does not agree with you. By the way, the term is being mentioned two times now in the lead; it's also in the second paragraph. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The second entry might not be as problematic if "many" is changed to "some". The first line is what threw me off completely. —SpacemanSpiff 07:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it as "doublure". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks better and accurate now. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

western view on hinduism

Why western view on Hinduism. Either put Hinduism view on Christianity and islam (described in ved, purans) in wikipedia or remove western view from Hinduism. This is double standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.127.1 (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

See, for example, Criticism of Christianity#Criticism by other religions. Criticism of Islam is also much larger than the equivalent for Hinduism. Rwessel (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Repeats itself

This article, in a number of places, repeats verbatim. Additionally the citations are so numerous that they distract and so many are unlikely to be necessary.Abitslow (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Go through the history of this article, and you'll see that many points were disputed; therefor, there are so many references. Quite a lot of editors on this article are only familiar with traditional views on Hinduism, not with contemporary scholarly insights. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sanatana Dharma again

The term "Sanatana Dharma" is already in the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And in a properly nuanced way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Conversion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In this section of the article, "Islamic rule and sects of Hinduism (c. 1100-1850 CE)", there is a sentence, "During this period Buddhism declined rapidly and large number of Hindus converted to Islam" - please change that to "During this period Buddhism declined rapidly and a large number of Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam", because people were forcibly converted to Islam.-Raam2 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Raam2: What sources do you have to back up that statement? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

One source for forced conversion is, "Dalit's Inheritance in Hindu Religion", by Mahendra Singh, found at http://books.google.co.in/books?id=7CoelGoA6l8C&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=forced+conversion+aurangzeb&source=bl&ots=vgIv6_rEtA&sig=l3qhDFgLBMiHPff-qF8i6hOr4tI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oYzKU4vqLYv48QWJ2oLADw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=forced%20conversion%20aurangzeb&f=false and another is at http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_malfuzat_frameset.htm –Raam2 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Another is http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/mm.htm –Raam2 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This "source"[5] literally states:

"He communed with this sky god before going into battle and before negotiating treaties, but at no time did he or any Mongol leader force this belief on others.".

It even goes on to say:

"Contrary to widespread belief, most Muslims in India and Indonesia were not converted by the sword. Some forced conversions did happen in India''

This "source"[6] does not mention forced conversation accruing in mass or small scale and that it instead states that it was only a policy. To clear up the amount, you should refer back to your first "source" that contradicts you. As for this "source"[7], it uses self published research which Wikipedia does not allow. If you really want to contribute please provided sources that you actually read instead of just search keyterms. Don't risk being blocked for such a behavior. AcidSnow (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't know what "behavior" of his made you threaten him for getting blocked. He may be a new user perhaps wanted to initiate a discussion on some point in the article. He did not go ahead and edit the article without discussing to warrant a warning like this. Learn to "Assume Good faith" and "Be nice to others". You seem to have worked up because he bought up a forced conversion issue. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not mean to threaten this user, all I was trying to do was inform him of the risks. I am sorry if it came out as such. I was not worked up about the topic, but rather how s/he used the same exact sources as another individual that was blocked and topic banned a few months ago. But, I hoped it was a coincidence and tired to inform him about what could happen if they continue like that other user had. As for "Assume Good faith", I had until I read their "sources". AcidSnow (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

One more source is: http://www.sikharchives.com/?p=2787 -Raam2 (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

For present day forced conversions in Pakistan, this is a source: Minority Rights Group International, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Pakistan : Hindus, 2008, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/49749cd23c.html [accessed 23 July 2014] -Raam2 (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the current topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are some more possible sources: http://books.google.com/books/about/Islamic_Jihad.html?id=T_tOAQAAIAAJ, http://books.google.com/books/about/Islam_and_Other_Religions.html?id=QJcHQgAACAAJ and http://books.google.com/books/about/Unsettling_Sikh_and_Muslim_Conflict.html?id=jdlxnuiem7IC

For conversion to christianity, we can possibly use: http://books.google.com/books/about/Conversion.html?id=L3TYAAAAMAAJ

This is one for Hindu temple destruction: http://books.google.com/books?id=LWOwVFfM7NgC&q=hindu#v=snippet&q=hindus&f=false-Raam2 (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This "source"[8] literally states: "Contrary to widespread belief, most Muslims in India and Indonesia were not converted by the sword. Some forced conversions did happen in India", so can we mention that some forced conversions did happen in India, citing that source?-Raam2 (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do your homework better before presenting sources. One is a self-published book. One is a copy of Wikipedia articles. One lists no publisher so we have no idea how reliable it is. Suggest you present a source, explaining why it's reliable, what text you want to cite from it, and what you want to add to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The last source I typed about mentions that some forced conversions did happen in India. I would like to cite that, "some forced conversions did happen in India"–Raam2 (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So the sentence I started with (at the top of this section) should be made, "During this period, Buddhism declined rapidly and some Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam"-Raam2 (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The full sentence reads, "Contrary to widespread belief, most Muslims in India and Indonesia were not converted by the sword. Some forced conversions did happen in India, but census data prove that most of these converts must have lapsed." It's talking about Muslims and the conversions didn't "take". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, can you help me with finding sources then? It is a known fact that Islam was spread in India (as well as other parts of the world) by money and force. Thanks!-Raam2 (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If that fact is important and notable enough for this article, then multiple sources should be easy for you to find. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You have rejected all the sources I typed about - that's why I asked you to help.—Raam2 (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Rewording: If that fact is important and notable enough for this article, then multiple academic sources should be easy for you to find. If obvious garbage sources are rejected, find acceptable sources for what you want to add. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: Raam2 has been confirmed to be a sockpuppet of the topic-banned editor Khabboos. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2014

103.225.231.2 (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No edits were requested. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Shramanic needs to be Shamanic

PLEASE CHANGE ASAP

But its not shamanic. It is shramanic. I'll change spelling to sramanic to eliminate confusion.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Insert a picture of a Brahmin priest

A picture of a Brahmin priest is pretty necessary.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why it is "necessary", but there are plenty of images to choose from at Commons: Category:Brahmins and Category:Hindu priests in India. Paul B (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Former seemed more knowledgeable. Something that people want to know. I will insert that one. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I already inserted one.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about the photo of Amarnath. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

@Bladesmulti, Kingsindian, Kautilya3, Reddyuday, Sparkume, Presearch, and Marthanon:Change "Hinduism is the dominant religion...." to "Hinduism is the dominant Dharma...."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why I was pinged. Is this page under some kind of protection? As to the change requested, I have no idea of the subtleties of "religion" vs "Dharma". Lacking any knowledge of the issue, I will go with "religion". Kingsindian (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, "dharma" is not an English word. So, I don't think it would appropriate in the English wikipedia. In Indian languages, it has a multitude of meanings. So, that won't help either. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on that logic, you might as well delete half the article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, "religion" is the most common term used by scholars. But "dharmic tradition" or similar phrases are used by a smaller number of scholars, and perhaps a larger proportion of nonscholars (e.g., ordinary people practicing the tradition, plus relevant spiritual leaders). I don't have a sense of how common such usage is in English. But if there's a substantial usage of phrases in the manner implied by your question (e.g., if there's WP:DUE), then why not try to accommodate both? The primary or initial statement could refer to "religion". But then a follow-up sentence (or more) could say something like, "many [explain who] refer to engagement with Hinduism as following a Hindu dharma, and speak of Hinduism as the dominant dharma in India."? --Presearch (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Those scholars use 'religion' because they have to make their studies easier for others who read them. Just like we are doing. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Hinduism is the dominant Dharma...." doesn't make sense to most of the readers of the English language. "Religion"of course, in many respects doesn't make sense to Hinduism, but alas, that's the term we're using now... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Part of the function of Wikipedia is to educate people about how different terms are used to describe the same thing. With regard to mere inclusion, the issue is not whether an audience is already familiar with a term, but whether a minority usage rises to the level of covering it being WP:DUE. --Presearch (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, it might be a good idea to explain what's being meant with "dharma", and that it's more than our narrow western understanding of "religion" as a private affair. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sindhu

Checking sources on "The word Sindhu is first mentioned in the Rigveda."

• "India", Oxford English Dictionary, second edition, 2100a.d. Oxford University Press - 2100? Way to go... The 2010-edition of "Oxford Dictionary of English" mentions the wordt sindhu at page 889, but does not mention the Rgveda.
• Rig Veda - original research; where does the Rigveda say that the term "Sindhu" is first being mentioned there?
• Subramuniyaswami, Satguru Sivaya (2003). Dancing With Siva: Hinduism's Contemporary Catechism. Himalayan Academy Publications. p. 1008. ISBN 9780945497967. - primary source.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It will be hard for readers. You should write like this ...................................................[1][2] ............... .................. ..........................[3][4] Currently it is like ......[1]........[2]............. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It is nice that you have added sources for every information, but can you add all sources after the end of sentence? Would be easier for readers to understand. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Specific references for specific information. I've seen so much arguing and questioning here already; those who doubt and want references have received them, and can check every bit of info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Good Primary Sources needed for "Divine sources of Karma" - in Karma in Hinduism article

Hi there, just posting in case anyone here can help as there are probably more Hindus watching this page. It's a dispute that has arisen over the Karma in Hinduism article.

If I understand it right (I'm not a Hindu myself) - this is about the notion, in some Hindu traditions, that Ishvara or other deities actually get involved to cause the results of karma rather than just let them happen as a natural force. There is a whole section Karma_in_Hinduism#The_role_of_divine_forces on this topic.

Please help by adding reliable citations to primary sources to that section if you know of any - or discuss on the talk page under Talk:Karma_in_Hinduism#All_sources_in_the_.22The_role_of_Divine_sources.22_section_have_just_been_marked_unreliable

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to say, I found a primary source, an article by Sivananda_Saraswati enough to put in a short stub section Karma_in_Hinduism#Proof_of_existence_of_God_from_Karma. However the other editor concerned disputes this as a valid citation, here on the Karma talk page

Talk:Karma#Misrepresentations_and_persistent_reliance_on_poor_quality_sources saying that it is a primary source and low quality, and I should find secondary sources. Seems to me that it is clear enough, article by a noted Hindu, author of over 200 books, that it doesn't need any other sources. Anyway whatever.

I'm not a Hindu and am well out of my depth there as to which are the best and most reliable primary and secondary sources in this topic. I didn't write the article. So if anyone likes to look over those sections in Karma_in_Hinduism#The_role_of_divine_forces and add a few more citations to support what it says, and of course correct any mistakes, it would be good. Robert Walker (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Details

Another editor added a sentence to the introduction of the Karma article under Karma#Definition_and_meanings saying "The law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment" - he has a scholarly source that says that all Hindus think this way about Karma.

So, he thinks that Karma_in_Hinduism#The_role_of_divine_forces must be incorrect and has marked all its sources as "unreliable". It is true that some of them were unreliable (it even referred to a google book made up of a previous version of the article itself) - still it had others that were okayish, e.g. outreach website of a Hindu temple - if surely not the best available.

Then, with an easy google scholar search - I've found an equally scholarly source that says some Hindus think that the results of Karma do have a divine source, backing up what the article says. And it seems to me that surely there must be Hindus that think this way also from numerous sites saying so on the web.

The problem is though, which are the reliable primary sources to use to resolve this issue? Any websites, scholarly sources, anything that a Hindu would regard as an authoritative source on such issues? Or at least, reliable enough to use as a source for wikipedia?

After all we have contradicting scholarly sources here. And it's been my experience also in this topic of Karma that many scholarly sources do contradict each other or are unreliable in various ways as a primary source, best treated as secondary sources. While others are suitable as primary sources but it can be hard to tell which is which.

See Talk:Karma_in_Hinduism#All_sources_in_the_.22The_role_of_Divine_sources.22_section_have_just_been_marked_unreliable

Also Talk:Karma#Dubious:_The_law_of_karma_operates_independent_of_any_deity_or_any_process_of_divine_judgment

Robert Walker (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia trust academics (religion scholars, historical critics) to describe Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. It does not trust gurus and preachers to do that, despite the fact that they could be very popular. Generally, apologetics and preaching to the choir are regarded of very low scholarly quality, thus unfit for a serious encyclopedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Article improvement

Possehl was not mentioning the mature Indus Valley Civilization, he referred to overall IVC.

"mesolithic. and netholitic times"? It could be written in one sentence. Ninian Smart's book has no preview on Google, whoever has here, will they review each of his dating tally?

The animal sacrifice section has some bunch of quotes, but they don't actually describe the religious position. I can help too. Delibzr (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Formatting error in introduction

In the third paragraph of the introduction the text "{{refn|group=note|" appears. This should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.220.224 (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Formatting error in introduction

In the third paragraph of the introduction the text "{{refn|group=note|" appears. This should be corrected.24.125.220.224 (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing, I have changed it. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

One of us fixed it? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes you did. I had edit conflict when I was reverting one of the last change. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilization ???

Connecting Indus Valley civilization with Hinduism remains very controversial and is often claimed by Hindu nationalists without substantial evidence. Harappa or Mohenjo-daro artifacts do not prove any connections with Hinduism. 468SM (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the references have academic citations. Why do you think there is a controversy? The fact that Hindu nationalists also believe something is not a good enough reason to disbelieve it. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you misinterpreted the text. The Hindu nationalist position is that the Indus Valley civilisation itself was Vedic. What our article says is that the Vedic religion was a synthesis of Indo-Aryan and Harappan religions. That is a very different statement. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Gundestrup Cauldron also looks like the Indus River Valley seal it does not prove anything. There are many in the archaeological community who disagree and are skeptical about the hypothesis of John Marshall and Gregory L. Possehl don't forget. Just because it makes Hindu Nationalism sound doesn't mean its correct. 468SM (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already debunked this nonsensical view of 468SM, I am not getting why he is still revising history with his opinion that starts with "also looks likes". See [9], a minority of scholars who have disputed the analysis that Pashupati Seal is not Shiva, they further admits that this analysis is universally accepted. Read:-

Herbert Sullivan : "has been accepted almost universally and has greatly influenced scholarly understanding of the historical development of Hinduism".[10]

Doris Meth Srinivasan: "no matter what position is taken regarding the seal's iconography, it is always prefaced by Marshall's interpretation. On balance the proto-Śiva character of the seal has been accepted."

Bladesmulti (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Blades, the identification of the Pashupati seal figure with Shiva was the prevailing view among researchers from 1920s-60s. Since then however the scholarly views have shifted, and now while scholars leave open the possibility that there is a link between the figure in the seal and Shiva, they consider it implausible overall.

I had started developing the Pashupati seal draft article last year covering all this, but only completed the first half before getting busy in real life. I didn't realize that the draft had been copied to main page at Pashupati seal, which is perfectly fine... but unfortunately, as a result of the interrupted work, the current wikipedia article presents an incomplete view of the subject. I'll try to take some time and remedy that before the end of the year (since I still have the relevant references on my hard-drive somewhere).

@468SM:: The current Hindusim article already specifies "However these links of deities and practices of the Indus religion to later-day Hinduism are subject to both political contention and scholarly dispute", which I believe is both accurate and an appropriate level of summary for this page. The Religion section of the IVC page contains some more details, and the Pashupati seal article will (at some point soon!) contain more detailed analysis about the narrow issue of the seal figure and Shiva. Did you have any specific changes in mind for this article in the meantime ? Abecedare (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes there are multiple scholars who have disputed, but I was only suggesting that this has to do nothing with any kind of nationalism and those who have disputed this analysis have however admitted that Marshall's analysis is considered as the major one. There was no problem with the current version, that's why I kept reverting to the version before 468SM's edits. I had knew that the idea of making a new article about PS was coined by you, just like its creator had described in his edit summary. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There are a ton of top western scholars that link IVC to Hinduism or Vedism. You can read page 28 of Kiss of the Yogini.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2014

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

But many of people get misconception that Sikhism is derived from Hinduism but in reality these both are totally different religion.Only language matches somewhere but meaning and teachings of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is completely different from Hinduism.Sikhs do not believe in idols and other rituals,they only believe in one god i.e.Waheguru. Guru Granth Sahib Ji clearly states that-

ਪੂਜਾ ਕਰਉ ਨ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਗੁਜਾਰਉ ॥ ਏਕ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ਲੇ ਰਿਦੈ ਨਮਸਕਾਰਉ ॥੩॥

I do not perform Hindu worship services, nor do I offer the Muslim prayers. I have taken the One Formless Lord into my heart; I humbly worship Him there. ||3||

ਨਾ ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ॥ ਅਲਹ ਰਾਮ ਕੇ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪਰਾਨ ॥੪॥

I am neither a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim. My body and breath of life belong to the Great Almighty (Allah-Raam). ||4||

Guru Gobind Singh Ji declared in the verses of Uggardanti:

ਦੁਹੂੰ ਪੰਥ ਮੈਂ ਕਪਟ ਵਿੱਦਯਾ ਚਲਾਨੀ ॥ ਬਹੁੜ ਤੀਸਰਾ ਪੰਥ ਕੀਜੈ ਪਰਧਾਨੀ ॥

Tho two paths (Vedic and Abrahamic) have become corrupt. O' Lord propagate and uplift the third path (Khalsa Panth) . Saddamjit Singh Rajput (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam ^Sing! 13:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Original research and Wikipedia:Primary. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sikhs follow the teachings of the Sikh gurus recorded in the Holy Guru-granth Sahib. I am not a Sikh, but I benefit from that holy granth also, and I bow my head in a gurdwara. Kanchanamala (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Usage of the term 'indo-aryan' and 'indo-european'

I get the sense that this article was written by someone who believes in the Aryan Invasion Theory, which is still controversial.

1) The Aryan Invasion Theory is still very controversial, and wikipedia should be written as if the theory is still controversial. Recent studies debunk the idea that an invasion ever happened. NATURE published an article confirming that the IVC collapsed due to drought, and not an invasion: http://www.nature.com/news/two-hundred-year-drought-doomed-indus-valley-civilization-1.14800

And various genetic studies have confirmed that the entire population of Sub-Himalayan Asia descended from the same genetic lineage: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-new-research-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory-1623744 http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/amythofaryaninvasionsofindia.pdf http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drishtikone/2012/12/new-study-establishes-romas-origin-to-punjab-and-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory/

2) The term 'Aryan' means noble, and has been used all over Asia to describe anything of nobility, from upper castes to kings. While individuals and ethnic groups can continue to refer to themselves as "the nobles", wikipedia should stop using the term 'aryan' in its articles as if the 'invading race' were nobles.

Futhermore, I was told the Aryan/Dravidian divide wasn't racial until British rulers implemented their rule-and-divide policies. The term Aryan has been used in South India and Sri Lanka in the same way it was used in North India. I believe it has use in Eastern Asia too.

3) Hindusim isn't a religion. It is a collection of traditions that were found throughout India and Sri Lanka and called 'Hinduism' by foreigners; the only thing that connects any of these religions are that they were founded in Sub-Himalayan Asia and that they haven't been segregated into other religions. Many people in India do not refer to the religion as 'hinduism' but as 'dharma'. This needs to be reflected in the article.

4) Wikipedia shouldn't publish articles as fact when so little is confirmed about the history of the region. Very little is know right now about the history of Indians and the IVC, and many things found in the IVC (such as the Indus Script) could completely debunk everything that's written here. Writers should be writing more cautiously. New research could easily point to the IVC as being the cradle of Hinduism.

5) I think people should refrain from using the terms 'indo-aryan' and 'indo-european', as this alienates Dravidians who have played an important role in the origins on Hinduism - and may have been the main creators of Hinduism. The terms Indo-Aryans/Indo-Europeans are being used to refer to either Arabs, Turks or Persians, so I don't think the words 'European' or 'Aryan' should be involved.

Please remember that the Aryan Invasion Theory is VERY controversial and has a ridiculously messy history. A lot of people from all over Asia get affected by this. Substantial care should be taken not to offend speakers of Dravidian languages too.

I may not reply to this post so please discuss and edit without me.

MADESMAN (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No one has stopped anyone from attributing to various opinions with reliable sources. Aryan Invasion is not the right theory, it is Aryan Migration. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

1) The articles I attached debunk BOTH the invasion theory AND the migration theory. Two of them come from American sources (NATURE and UNIVERSITY).

2) http://www.indiaforum.org/india/hinduism/aryan/page18.html

3) http://www.umich.edu/~aamuhist/smullang/pubspeak.htm

4) http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/sars238/shortencybrit.html http://www.verbalplanet.com/Dravidian-Family.asp

5) I think this is both common knowledge and common sense. For any respected source to call a race or ethnicity "noble" is either biased or controversial. And the vast majority of migration theories (which have been debunked) only ever pointed to a migration of Persians and Arabs, maybe Turks.

Europe has had minimal to zero involvement in the various rituals practiced as Hinduism in Asia, I don't think the word 'European' should be given such prominence.

If the migration theory must be written about, it shouldn't be presented as fact and other views should be taken into account. In fact, a lot of this article is written as fact when most of it remains controversial and under-researched.

MADESMAN (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Levant = Mitanni?

@Joshua Jonathan: This revert [11] seems ill-thought out to me. We are not going to start the New Year with an edit war, are we? You didn't answer my question, are the "Vedic people" that went to the Levant the same as Mitanni or not? If not, who were they? Secondly, this is not a "direct quote," as you claim. Beckwith mentions three groups, one that went to Levant, one to India and one to China (with some doubt). Only two groups are mentioned here. But the first group, as far as I understand, was already mentioned in the paragraph. Double counting it is confusing. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• I don't know what your plans are; mine are to edit in a constructive way.
• "across the Near East to the Levant (the lands of the eastern Mediterranean littoral), across Iran into India." is a quote, like it or not.
• What makes you think of "the "Vedic people" that went to the Levant"? The wiki-text says "One group were the Indo-Aryans who founded the Mitanni kingdom in northern Syria".

I've got no time now to check the source; New Year's Party is about to start, with the first guest coming in. Happy New Year! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too! We can continue discussion after you have got time to check the source. Meanwhile, I am putting back my version because I am convinced that the people that went to Levant (in Beckwith's terminology) are the Mitanni, who have been already mentioned in the text. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The party-gang has started to make a jigsaw-puzzle (bunch of friendly intellectuals together...), so I'm peeping out for a short while.

With this edit, and the edit-summary "Isn't the Levant group already covered as Mitanni?", you changed

"The other group were the Vedic people, who were pursued by the Iranians "across the Near East to the Levant (the lands of the eastern Mediterranean littoral), across Iran into India.(Beckwith 200, p.34)"

into

"The other group were the Vedic people, who were pursued by the Iranians "across Iran into India.(Beckwith 200, p.34)"

I thought you'd removed the middle part; you removed the start, so the citation is not corrupted.

I agree that the sentence looks strange; it's a long way from the Levant to India... I "borrowed" (took over) Beckwith's "Empires of the Silk Road" from my father, so let's see. But indeed, the full sentence is indeed what Beckwith writes. He also writes, at page 35:

Old Indic [...] is attested first in upper Mesopotamia and the Levant, and later in India."

And at page 33 he writes that the Mitanni-group also belonged to the second wave. This is what I (re)read so far; I'll have a closer look later, for this "split". Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The full sentence is "across the Near East to the Levant (the lands of the eastern Mediterranean littoral), across Iran into India, and perhaps across Eastern Central Asia into China." The sentence says that one group was "pursued" to the Levant, the other group to India (and perhaps a third group to China). I've cnahed the paragraph into

"The Indo-Aryans split-off around 1800-1600 BCE from the Iranians,[181] where-after they were defeated and split into two groups by the Iranians,[182] who dominated the Central Eurasian steppe zone[183] and "chased them to the extermities of Central Eurasia."[183] One group were the Indo-Aryans who founded the Mitanni kingdom in northern Syria;[179] (ca.1500-1300 BCE) and the other group were the Vedic people,[184] The two groups were pursued by the Iranians respectively "across the Near East to the Levant (the lands of the eastern Mediterranean littoral), across Iran into India, and perhaps across Eastern Central Asia into China."[185]"

I hope it's clearer now. And, to answer you question: the Mittani and the Vedic people were both Indo-Aryan peoples. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I love your commitment! Say Happy New Year to all your partymen and women for me.

I think your change looks fine. There is a story here that you might enjoy. The asuras (Iranians) and the suras (Indic people) churned the ocean (the Caspian?) to get amrita but the asuras were trying to steal it all for themselves. Then Vishnu supposedly came and helped out the suras in the form of Mohini and robbed the asuras of their share of amrita. Apparently, the history is telling us that this was all a hoax, and the asuras did get all the amrita for themselves! Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Or, may be the suras did get their share of amrita after all. That is how they survived the rout and ended up in India, the land of Vishnu. But the "asuras" did come back to get them, and destroyed the Vishnu Hari temple in Ayodhya, and we have been fighting over it ever since. The older tradition says that the suras and asuras keep fighting for ever. They are step-brothers, apparently all male. So, now you know! Kautilya3 (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

And, I don't necessarily want to call the Mitanni "Vedic people". I thought that was the terminology being used. But you call them Indo-Aryans, which is fine. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a nice story! This is from Asura:

"In early Vedic texts, both suras and asuras were deities who constantly competed with each other, some bearing both designations at the same time. In late-Vedic and post-Vedic literature the Vedic asuras became lesser beings while in the Avesta, the Persian counterpart of the Vedas, the devas began to be considered lesser beings."

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone really know what Vedic text is all about? Is it not still mostly obscure? What do the words sura and a-sura mean? Does ārya refer to some ethnic people? Think about it. Quoting from some published book is not good enough. A lot has been published about India and its ancient literature by pseudo-scholars. Kanchanamala (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You can read this very nice book on Rig Veda online [12]. Joshua and I were just toying with some fancies above. Please don't take them seriously. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Authentic" Hinduism?

@ArjunKrishna90: Not sure why you needed to add these links: [13]. Self-designations like "authentic" Hinduism and "true" history smack of heavey POV-pushing. They have no place on Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

there is no such thing as an "authentic" Hindu Desione (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding Sanatana dharma to lead

From the supplied source, "The term has also more recently been used by Hindu leaders, reformers, and nationalists to refer to Hinduism as a unified world religion." I don't think the usage of this term is anywhere close to being common in English-language sources to merit, "Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree. The name should not be used in the lead sentence.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"also more recently been used..." is just that. An "also".VictoriaGrayson^Talk

moving and surgery

Please discuss before moving and making big surgery on the article Shrikanthv (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Shrikanthv: Are you referring to something specifically? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Is someone moving the article?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"The Hindu god Indra represents the initiation of the Vedic tradition."

What does the above sentence even mean?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Article issues

This article was mentioned elsewhere recently and I had also highlighted numerous issues before,[14] I guess we should review the article. A lot of the content looks redundant and unrelated to Hinduism on this article. Sometimes the sources also lack page numbers. I am starting from the first section, Hinduism#Etymology, Third paragraph is unsourced and its single source from 1973 has no page numbers. "Indo aryan sanskrit" is not mentioned in the source, [15], though it is represents like it has.

Hinduism#Diversity_and_inclusivism looks undue, all of the three paragraphs of Hinduism#Diversity are repeating each other, one sentence like "Hinduism consists of many diverse traditions and has no single founder" is clearly more than enough for describing the whole conclusion, including a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_denominations. Then Hinduism#Roots_of_Hinduism mostly describes the tradition of Northern Indian Hinduism that was after 500 BCE. For these reasons, Hinduism#Inclusivism is also redundant. Then Hinduism#Periodisation, it requires no explanation or any table, a simple "History" with about 8 paragraphs are enough, a reader would directly look into the history instead of having variety of views from the table.

Hinduism#Pre-history's first two paragraphs have no connection with Hinduism. None of the first anatomically modern humans can be considered to have founded Hinduism. 3rd paragraph of this section prescribes to two different sources about the origins from mesolithic and neolithic times, and the author is clearly not sure about these parallels.

Hinduism#Indus Valley Civilisation : Requires no more than one line, it is better described on its main article.

Hinduism#Vedic period (c. 1750-500 BCE) : Not neutral or correctly represented, Upinder Singh on a given page number says that there is no definite answer about the histories of Indo Aryans, Upinder is doubtful and that it was the religion of Indo Aryan,[16] . Beckwith describes the spread of Indo European languages, but never mentioned Hinduism in this context.[17] More than half of the Vedic sections depends upon a single source [18] considers that 383 words belonging to different culture, and he considers[19] the thesis as "of course a guess", important thing is that the whole book has no mention of "Hinduism" and the writer might be expert on linguistics, but not Veda/Hinduism.. Axel is not sure either, he used words such as "assumed", "probably", he mentions some legible disputes and then he ends with "dispute among the various theories about the origin of Aryas" will continue.[20] These sections are not mentioning any dispute found in these books or actual expression of these authors, they are wholly about the Indo-Aryan migration theory and nothing actually. If we have to mention the connection, we can just cover it up in a few words, we can say "Vedic religion may have been influenced by the Proto Indo-European religion".

Hinduism#"Second Urbanisation" (c. 500-200 BCE): Reads like an essay about the similarity and differences of Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism without providing conclusion.

Hinduism#Islamic_rule_and_sects_of_Hinduism_.28c._1100-1850_CE.29#Hinduism#Classical Hinduism (c. 200 BCE-1100 CE), Hinduism#Modern Hinduism (from c. 1850) seem undue as well, and the separate subheadings are distracting from the actual Hinduism. In place of writing 50 lines, we can shorten it to 5 lines. Like Hinduism#Popularity in the west might be better as :

"Prominent Hindu philosophers, including Aurobindo and Prabhupada (founder of ISKCON), translated, reformulated and presented Hinduism's foundational texts for contemporary audiences in new iterations, attracting followers and attention in India and abroad. Others such as Vivekananda, Paramahansa Yogananda, Sri Chinmoy, B.K.S. Iyengar, Swami Rama among others have also been instrumental in raising the profiles of Yoga, Ayurveda, Vedanta in the West."

The estimations and the scope of practices belongs to the individual articles. Hinduism#Demographics can be removed since there is Hinduism by country. Delibzr (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right that the history-section is too long. I'd already copied info to History of Hinduism, with the aim to shorten it here. There are some parts which you mention that I'd prefer to preserve here; at least the paragraph about "Hindu synthesis", since it gives essential information about the emergence of what we nowadays call "Hinduism." I'll give a longer reply later this week; I'm limited to a mini-tablet now. Anyway, I appreciate your detailed exposition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't read even read some of them before and I was not aware of incorrect representation until now. I have just viewed these citations. 1100 BCE for iron is also an outdated estimate. Similar paragraphs about Vedic can be also seen on other pages like Vedic Period and Historical Vedic Religion, although there was no agreement to insert them. It is obvious to say that the origin of modern human has nothing to do with Hinduism but I never thought this way. Your solution is probably Wikipedia:BLOWITUP and if it makes our page look better. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Then we will have to solve that issue as well since the whole section is rather synth than it is informative. Delibzr (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I see no issues. It just seems Delibzr wants the article to look his or her own way.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to have a close look over any other religion articles or verify the information, if it is correctly supported by the sources. You would see severe issues. Delibzr (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

What we have written here or at History of Hinduism, it would practically reflect the information that concerns Hinduism. I think not to copy it to History of Hinduism, but carry out clean up on History of Hinduism as well. The "Hindu synthesis", the part that you want to preserve here is undue and misrepresented, apart from an opinion of a single author who refers to who refers to a fusion and has no references, rest can be checked here.

"The Religious Traditions of Asia: Religion, History, and Culture" talks about a combination of one of the Hindu synthesis, and not the Hinduism as a synthesis or mainly emerging since the start of common era, it says that it emerged between 500 BCE - 467 CE, and there is also a lack of "historiographical" properties. Where did Kitagawa/Hiltebeitel mentioned the transfer from north India? Some other sources like Page 127 - 129 of "An Introduction of Hinduism" speaks about the development of the worship of Vishnu in south India, not the development of Hinduism and it says that the Kaveri basin became similarly important in the development of Hinduism as "the Ganges basin" in the north and Hinduism developed more in south due to the Muslim rule of northern part in medieval period. Where these sources, including[21] have mentioned any "Hindu synthesis"? Delibzr (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree with VictoriaGrayson. There are no major issues with this article except that it is overly complicated. The reason it is complicated is that naive editors come here and start contesting everything with their half-baked knowledge. That is why tons and tons of sources have been given, to the point of being overwhelming. Now, if you are complaining that there aren't enough sources, I don't know what to say. The very first place where synthesis is mentioned in the article (in the lead), there are some 10 citations, and at least 3 footnotes with direct quotations. I have no idea what you are reading. Please try reading again. Kautilya3 (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Citations do not support the information that has been presented. Having a "source presented" is not enough, because the information has to be supported by the provided source. Read WP:OR, sources are being clearly misused. Also compare the quotefarm and the standard of the article with any other article like Islam, Christianity. This one is very poor. Delibzr (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 and Victoriagrayson, if someone finally wants to participate in making this article better you should discuss where they are right or wrong instead of casting aspersions and leaving the issues aside. You have to look into every single concern that has been listed above and you haven't proved that how they are wrong. Without looking at the citations how you can even say that the content is correct? Main problem behind these changes is, that there was no discussion and they were made without any agreement, and no one even bothered to check then. Now we have the idea that there are indeed problems. We should blow it up and start over or recover any previous better version. Important changes can be still discussed. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the citations before making my previous comment.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(inserting in the middle in order not to break the thread) Delbzr's comments are valuable as a reader's feedback. But, on the whole, they are just opinions, which we are free to accept or not accept. Their complaints about substance, if that is what they are, don't seem to hold up. If they wants them to be pursued, they need to make them more clearly and precisely.Kautilya3 (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Here we are again. The part on "Hindu synthesis" became so long because one editor demanded more and more refrences and quotes; and when they were all provided he complained that there were too many references and quotations. So, a lot of discussion on sourced info from reliable sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Delibrz does have good comments. I've changed "Hindu synthesis" in the third paragraph to "Vedic-Brahmanical culture." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I prefer "Hindu synthesis" because it has just been explained in the previous paragraphs. Replacing it by "brahmanical," which is a meaningless term, isn't an improvement. It also contradicts the previous paragraph which says that Hinduism, by this time, wasn't Brahmanism. It is also not clear if your sources have been ignoring Satavahanas, who formed an important step in the spread of Hinduism as well as Buddhism to the South (remember Nagarjuna?). Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, thanks for accurately reflecting the references.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added "Brahmanical synthesis" to the terminology. I don't know what the sources say about the Satavahana dynasty. It's an extremely complicated topic, isn't it? And I think that Delibzr is also right that south India had it's own trajectory in its further development of Hinduism; but it also "deviated" from "orthodox Hinduism"; see, for example, the role of the Agamas. It may also be true that the Kaveri basin wasy important in the development of Hinduism, but the period of Muslim-rule started of course centuries later than the period in which "Hinduism" emerged, around the start of the Common Era. Any way, ample room for simplifications here. By the way, Alf Hiltebeitel is a valid source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If the South is not the bastion of orthodox Hinduism, I don't know what is.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The earliest prehistoric religion in India that may have left its traces in Hinduism comes from mesolithic as observed in the sites such as the rock paintings of Bhimbetka rock shelters dating to a period of 30,000 BCE this sentence uses Wendy Doniger's book as citation, it is not a peer reviewed paper. I think it should be removed. Kenfyre (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It may be far-stretching the roots of Hinduism. But the reference says The Hindus: An Alternative History, which is published by Oxford University Press. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Doniger's book is too controversial to be a reliable source. In any case, she is not a historian and we can't rely on her book for historical facts. Suggest we get rid of this reference. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You've got a point there, though it's still OUP. My objection would be that this quote over-stretches the roots of Hinduism, as it is presented now. But I always found this sentence to be relevant, since it gives an indication of the ancientness of Indian culture. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Longer reply by JJ:

• Etymology: Sharma, Arvind (2002), "ON HINDU, HINDUSTAN, HINDUISM AND HINDUTVA", NUMEN, Vol. 49, BRILL may be a good source;
• Diversity and inclusivism: if not here, then where in which article? "Diversity" is a central quality of Hinduism; nevertheless, there is also a sense of unity, as described in "Inclusivism." This "inclusivism" is central in understanding the "self-understanding" of Hinduism (this is a reification, of course), c.q. modern Hindus. The "typology" shows how many sorts of Hinduism can be discerned, and how scholars wrestle to describe Hinduism correctly, including the diversity and the unity;
• Practices, beliefs, etc: Axel Michaels, in his book Hinduism, foucusses on the actual practices and rituals, to avoid an overemphasis on the "self-presentations" of "Hinduism". That may be a wise approach here too: showing what Hinduism is in practice, in daily life, instead of sharp-edge definitions. More like "Hinduism is ..., and also ..., and also ...";
• History:

• Periodisation: could be shortened; maybe only the opening paragraph with James Mill, and the table;
• Origins ("Roots of Hinduism"): first paragraph is essential, since it shows that "traditional" accounts and historigraphic accounts are different; since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, summarizing scientific research, this part belongs in the article. The second ("After the Vedic period") and third paragraph ("From northern India") could also be moved to the section on "Pre-classical Hinduism";
• Pre-history: agree;
• Indus Valley Civilisation: agree, but also no problem with the present paragraph;
• Vedic period#Origins: can be shortened. Singh gives a nuanced resume of the research, also mentioning Witzel, who notes that the Vedas were "elite texts." (Singh 2008 p.185). I think that the dating should stay, the sentence "The Indo-Aryans were pastoralists who migrated into north-western India after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization" should also stay, and then the last paragraph ("During the early Vedic period [...] or "Hindu synthesis"");

• Second Urbanisation: could be improved indeed;
• Classical Hinduism: long indeed;
• Islamic rule: ms Sarah Welch added info on the impact of Islamic rule, which seems valuable; but maybe this can be shortened too. Nicholson's note on the emerging sense of unity is essential for understanding modern, "popular" Hinduism;
• Modern Hinduism: also about the "self-understanding" of Hinduism c.q. Hindus. Seems relevant to me, since this occupies such a central place in the debate on what Hinduism is;
• Demographics: no opinion on this.

Best regrads, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

buddhism in lead section

why there is a need to add buddhism in lead section ? and eventhough it is not bringing any value or information to lead Shrikanthv (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems like WP:UNDUE detail in lead. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. Its talking about how Hinduism supplanted Buddhism. Characterizing it as Buddhist information is inaccurate. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

On this one I agree with Victoria. There are 73 mentions of Buddhism in the article. The lede is supposed to summarise the content of the article in which the relation of Hinduism and Buddhism is a major topic, so I don't buy Redtigerxyz's argument that it is WP:UNDUE. Shrikanthv's claim that it is "not bringing any value or information to lead" is false, the 'power struggle' between Buddhism and Hinduism in India is crucial to the history of the religion. Paul B (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hinduism and Buddhism are two "world religions." The fact that they coexisted side-by-side in India is certainly of importance to both of them. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

They can't be seen separate. "Buddhism" may have been an "organized" "religion" earlier than Hinduism, but they share many roots in the shramanic movements (See Samuel (2010), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra). Buddhism was an elite affair, dependent on support by kings and merchants. When the kings finally swifted their support 'exclusively' to "Hinduism", Buddhism was lost. But "Hinduism", the mix of Brahmanical and local traditions, already was more widespread 'at the base', as far as I know; Buddhism was for monks, 'elite religious experts', too far removed from common life and common people too be really helpfull, as far as I know. And "Buddhism" may have influenced "Hinduism" in many aspects, but "Hinduism" also influenced "Buddhism". They can't be seen separate. After all, Buddhism too was Indian; no Buddhism without India. Probably: no meditation without India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added a further nuance: "to finally gain the upper hand also in most royal circles." I hope this helps. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There are currently 28 mentions of Buddhism (not sure in which version, 73 mentions are present). Also, there were also conflicts with Jainism (Shramana), Islam and Christianity. So should we mention those too? The history needs to be condensed (eg. Christianity). UNDUE detail exists in the lead. IMO, types: Vedic; Brahmanic; Puranic and folk Hinduism just need to informed.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hinduism is much more intertwined with Buddhism than with Jainism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There are 73 mentions if you include "Buddha" and "Buddhist" (when I said mentions of Buddhism, I of course meant mentions of the religion, not repetitions of the word). Many are in the now quite extensive footnotes. Even if there were only 28, it would still be rather a lot. The interactions with Jainism, Islam and Christianity are relatively trivial in terms of the impact they have had on the development of the religion. In any case, the argument should concern the relation of the actual content to the lede, not what you may think should be the content. Paul B (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If it is so intertwined why there is only "one" mention about Hinduism on buddhism page?, can you have look at the lines in the lead ? buddhism being meant only for "elite" lead to many transfer to Hinduism ? is a clear synthesis wp:syn . I would wait it out since I see emotional attachments and see that some one feels there is need of stamping of Buddhism over the Hinduism article to get it noted, let us see how it stands with time Shrikanthv (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The whole of history section is a mess. The lead merely reflects it. It reads more like a history of Buddhism and Hinduism. There also appears to be lot of cross–polination with History of India. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but the focus here seems to have moved away from Hinduism to India/Buddhism in a big way. The pre-history section for instance is completely undue and outside the scope of the article. Amitrochates (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Also the descriptions of Jainism are undue. Those history sections depends a lot upon a source from 1951, and it is not even available for us to verify the attributed. It quotes those individuals who believes that Buddhism and Jainism were not influenced by Hinduism and they had influenced the later Hinduism instead. There is no particular page number provided for the same at Classical Hinduism (c. 200 BCE-1100 CE). Anyone has the page 21 of [22]? This is where we require quote in the reference. Delibzr (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to address your last query: the full Vijay Nath article can be read here. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare. Delibzr (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(←) Samples of Introductions to Hinduism in various sources

• BBC Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism all noted: similarities, but no undue detail about Hinduism surpassing Buddhism in 8th century
  • History in BBC: Hardly any talk about Buddhism and Hinduism relations; the current version gives Buddhism lot of importance in an UNDUE fashion
• Britannica: no history in lead
  • History: 1 para about Buddhism's decline around Shankara's time; but lots of other things. Hinduism under Islamic rulers has much more info
• CNN nothing about Buddhism

• New Dictionary of the History of Ideas (2005) again nothing about Buddhist elitism etc
• International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences | 2008 talks about Jain and Buddhist challenge in a para to a very small portion of the article
• Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions Hinduism entry has sub-entries about Hinduism and Islam and Hinduism and Christianity, but not Hinduism and Buddhism
• Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and ... Hinduism under Islamic rule is discussed in more detail; Buddhist and Jain confrontations discussed, but the weight to rest of the history is less. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Those links provide better idea to design this article. Delibzr (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure of the merit of comparing ourselves to other Encyclopedias. Wikipedia is expected to be better than the others because we are an open institution and we can bring in viewpoints that the others might miss. I do believe that Buddhism and, possibly Jainism, had enormous impact on Hinduism because Hinduism before 600 BC and Hinduism after 600 BC were radically different. If there is scholarly work that has studied those areas of impact, we should include them and they add to our understanding of Hinduism. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

More problems with 8th century statement about Buddhism: WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:SYNTHESIS and possibly WP:POV pushing about Buddhism. P. T. Raju p. 31 has a para on the decline of Buddhism and Jainism, while discussing the "Nature and development of Indian thought" chapter (note this is not a chapter on Hinduism). Kumarila and Shankara are credited for the downfall of both Buddhism and Jainism (this needs to be noted in History as in Britannica, not lead). Surprisingly nothing about royal patronages or elitist Buddhism. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

All the royalty of India worshiped Buddha. Not some Jain Tirthankara. Its a matter of history, not POV pushing. Buddhism, not Jainism, was patronized along with Hinduism. Read Alexis Sanderson's The Saiva Age.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Shankara is indeed credited for this, but it does not mean it's a historical fact. As far as I know, to credit Shankara with the downfall of Buddhism is itself POV, a popular "explanation" which which gives undue weight to the influence of Shankara. It's probably the other way roun: Buddhism lost royal patronage, while "Hinduism", c.q. the Brahmins won support; ergo, history came to be understood as a "victory" of orthodoxy over heterodoxy. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Again just like edits, when was only Buddhism royalty ? , what do you mean by all the "royalties of India" ?, heard about Chandragupta Maurya ?. comming down to gross conclusions due to certain time and period of history is really a dilution of history and truth Shrikanthv (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't understand the timelines.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Instead of abusing the user and making personal comments, why don't you answer Shrikant's questions.? I think he has raised valid points about the issue. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging Criticism of Hinduism with Hinduism creating a single article for the topic with a strong NPOV. The Criticism article is very small ( a single paragraph ) and it would fit nicely in the section "Person and society" This merger will help keep all of the information on the topic in one place which is what NPOV is about. Any help, feedback, or suggestions, are both appreciated and welcome :) Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sramanic traditions

According to samuel (2010), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, the various sramanic tarditions developed in close interaction, and can't be really seen separate from each other. The Vedic-Upanishadic tradition was influenced by Jainism and Buddhism, but Buddhism was also influenced by Jainism and the Vedic-Upanishadic tradition, et cetera. See also Bronkhorst, Johannes (1993), The Two Traditions Of Meditation In Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass Publ.. It's not a matter of 'this was first' vs. 'that was first'; it's a matter of why this whole movement came into existence, and how it influenced Indian religion in toto. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

NB: maybe the paragraph "Pratt notes [...] the Upanishads" should be removed too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The influence/relation across Hinduism and Sramanic traditions needs to be briefly summarized somewhere. @Redtigerxyz: you deleted the "Concept of Atman" sub-section (here), with edit summary "the short 1 line description of atman in above is sufficient". Which "1 line" did you have in mind? and why not include "concept of atman" subsection that is shared by all schools/sects of Hinduism, which is also a major conceptual difference between Hinduism and Buddhism and source of numerous commentaries/publications? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"Most Hindus believe that the spirit or soul – the true "self" of every person, called the ātman — is eternal.[87] According to the monistic/pantheistic (non-dualist) theologies of Hinduism (such as Advaita Vedanta school), this Atman is ultimately indistinct from Brahman, the supreme spirit.[88] The goal of life, according to the Advaita school, is to realise that one's ātman is identical to Brahman, the supreme soul that is present in everything and everyone." Based on the literature review in above sections, we have focus on primarily Hindu beliefs and not turn into a generic Indian religions comparisons. "Second Urbanisation" does note Sramana influences. However, it can be improved a little with influences on each other. However, Buddhism and Hinduism, Jainism and Hinduism should make comparisons on concepts like differences/similarities on concept of atman in Buddhism and Hinduism, in detail; not this section should be a long section about the differences/similarities, considering WP:LENGTH. This article has already grown and "History" in particular needs WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Currently, my aim to summarize/shorten existing research. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

These are two different, although related, statements: (1) Most Hindus believe that the spirit or soul - the true "self" of every person, called the atman - is eternal. (2) A central premise of Hinduism is that every human being and living creature has a Soul or Self (Ātman). Shouldn't both these key metaphysical and theological themes be mentioned in the article? I concur repetition weakens the article. Perhaps a bit of wordsmithing can address your concern and mine, without adding bulk? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, all the comparisons between Hinduism and Buddhism are best moved to the Hinduism and Buddhism page. This article is already quite long. Those aspects of Buddhism that have contributed to Hinduism as practised today can continue to stay here. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I have trimmed the Sramanic tradition and Hinduism, in the history section. A summary of comparison and mutual influence is due and will improve the article. However, instead of repetitively asserting "Sramanic traditions influenced Hinduism" and equivalent phrases, it would be better to include a few specific uniquely sramanic concepts that Hinduism got from sramanic traditions. Yoga, samsara, moksha and possibly even karma doctrine have been credited to the ascetic circles, and from ascetics arose the sramanic traditions, not the other way around, per Samuel/Flood/etc. Even CE era discussion of Advaita Vedanta - Buddhism interaction lacked any specific substance. Whenever a conclusion is worth mentioning in this encyclopedic article on Hinduism, the premises, the "how, which, what and few specific facts" that led to that conclusion are more so. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, I bow, and surrender, with gratitude, to your boldness and knowledge diff. Highly appreciated. NB: regarding soul and anatman, please read Pre-sectarian Buddhism#Schayer - Precanonical Buddhism and Buddha-nature#Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. I'm not so sure anymore about this distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism, but my knowledge on this topic is not sufficient; it's too complicated. But the oldest Buddhism may have been closer to Brahmanical ideas than I'd ever thought to be possible. Mind you all: I'm writing "Buddhism closer to Brahmanical ideas", not the other way round! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Paraphrasing of Sweetman

In response to the concerns of Blades, I've started to check the paraphrasing of Sweetman (note 14; source: [23]). Help would be very welcome, though. Sweetman's English is oustanding, and, of course, superior to mine. I'm simply lacking this level of fluency in English to easily find useable synonyms and paraphrases, which do proper justice to his information and insights. I could, of course, add a lot of quotation marks, but that's not attractive either. So, if there are native speakers who could help me here, you're very welcome to do so. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of history para in lead

Removed:

Drawing on various traditions, the so-called "Hindu synthesis" or "Brahmanic synthesis" emerged around the beginning of the Common Era, incorporating various traditions into the "Brahmanical fold." The resulting "Puranic Hinduism" co-existed for several centuries with Buddhism, having a broad appeal in contrast to the more elitist Buddhist tradition, and finally gained the sole support also from most royal circles during the 8th century CE.From northern India the Vedic-Brahmanical culture, and its societal divisions, spread to southern India and large parts of Southeast Asia.

With the onset of Muslim-rule, a growing sense of unity was asserted, to distinguish the Indian traditions from foreign influences and traditions. This sense of unity has been strengthened since the 19th century, in response to the dominance of western colonialism and Indology, when the term "Hinduism" came into broad use, and Hinduism was recognized as a coherent and independent tradition. The popular understanding of Hinduism has been dominated by "Hindu modernism", in which mysticism and the unity of Hinduism have been emphasised. During 20th century, Hindutva ideology, a part of the Hindu politics emerged as a political force and a source for national identity in India.

Literature review

• BBC Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism all noted: similarities, but no undue detail about Hinduism surpassing Buddhism in 8th century
  • History in BBC: Hardly any talk about Buddhism and Hinduism relations; the current version gives Buddhism lot of importance in an UNDUE fashion
• Britannica: no history in lead
  • History: 1 para about Buddhism's decline around Shankara's time; but lots of other things. Hinduism under Islamic rulers has much more info
• CNN nothing about Buddhism
• New Dictionary of the History of Ideas (2005) again nothing about Buddhist elitism etc
• International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences | 2008 talks about Jain and Buddhist challenge in a para to a very small portion of the article
• Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions Hinduism entry has sub-entries about Hinduism and Islam and Hinduism and Christianity, but not Hinduism and Buddhism
• Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and ...
• Encyclopedia of Hinduism p. 317 onwards
• Encyclopedia of Hinduism By Constance Jones, James D. Ryan p. xviii onwards again British era and Islam age given more weightage
• The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism: A-M p. vii onwards

References

Issues

• Is detailed history needed at all in the lead
• Length of paragraph (if included)
• Topics need to be covered

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see this as being "detailed" at all. It is a quick summary. I don't think we can see this from the point of practising Hindus, who think it is obvious what Hinduism is. But it isn't obvious at all. Without Puranic Hinduism, we don't even have anything that is recognisable as the present day Hinduism. The Vedic religion was non-idolatorous, and didn't worship any of the gods worshipped today. The present day differs from Puranic Hinduism again, incorporating further consolidation in reaction to Islam and under the influence of Orientalism. It is the last influence that has coined the term "Hinduism." So, I don't see how any of this can go out of the lead. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"Misrepresentation" diff? It may be too long for the lead, but it's an accurate representation of mainstream scholarly knowledge on the development of Hinduism. If there is too much on Buddhism in the lead ("co-existed for several centuries with Buddhism" is not so much; the section contains much more info), then it still does not mean that the info on Buddhism is inaccurate or irrelevant, let alone the rest on the emergence and development of Hinduism. You noted yourself that the Islamic era is given more weight in other encyclopedia, so why then remove that info from the lead? Shortening the lead is an understandable an acceptable argument; "misrepresentation" is not, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan, "misrepresentation" was a strong (and inaccurate) term. I apologise for that. However, the history needs to be short (1 para). I meant to say that a concise and accurate representation is needed. The length is contested, thus the word contested. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Have you got a proposal for the history-section in the lead? Or do you think it's best to leave it out of the lead altogether? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I will suggest to Leave it out for now. We need to arrive at a one-para short history (like in Christianity), if it needs to be included. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)