Talk:Hinduism/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I have added this link on why hindus are declining in the world and why hindus all over the world are degraded for one reason on other --http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?id=1131077479&type=articles.

                                                                             --- Kong

Is Buddhism really a sect of Hinduism? Also how can a group of atheists be a branch of a religion? --rmhermen

The Indian spiritual teacher Gautama Buddha, who founded Buddhism, rejected the Vedas as invalid and obsolete. According to the sutras, he spoke of the Divine, devas and God but was neither a theist nor an atheist but a non-theist. Brahmans or Brahmins absorbed him and his teachings into what is now called Hinduism (as with most Indian rishis); making him the 9th incarnation of Vishnu. Be well. Usedbook

The nastika schools are not branches of Hinduism; they are more a traditional Hindu conceptualisation and categorisation of their opponents. -- Simon J Kissane

That is not clear from the article but sounds correct. --rmhermen

Would it be possible to tease out the parts not specific to Hinduism as a religion, and move it to something like Ancient History of South Asia? I'm thinking of the parts about Mohenjodaro and Harappa, and about the Aryans. Or are they too integral to be seperated? --DanKeshet

Well, since Hinduism isn't, strictly speaking, "a religion", but more a cluster of religious beliefs, philosophical views, histories, and cultural practices, there may be no point in trying to differentiate between Hinduism as "a religion" and its historical-etc. context. --kaleideion

Note that the Aryan invasion theory is presented as fact in older history books. I summarized the views of the expert community. Frankly, I don't even have a strong POV on the issue - other than that I'd like it to be explained as clearly as possible. Feel free to substitute "largely discredited" for "cast into doubt" if you don't like that phrase. Mkweise 20:21 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Re: the latest edit, I think we should avoid implying that these are a dogma that defines hinduism, since many of these are disputed between Hindus, and groups that consider themselves "hindu" may subscribe to varying subsets of the nine points you listed. As it is, this sounds like the "Nine Commandments of Hinduism", which is just wrong. Thoughts? Graft

It's not at all like "commandments"; it's an after-the-fact "compilation" of common beliefs. I think the article should have a concise summary of Hindu beliefs, don't you? Which point(s) is it that doesn't apply to all Hindus? Would you be happier with a "most Hindus" type wording?

Some time in the early 1990s, the supreme court of India came up with a legal definition of Hinduism, which IIRC is comprised of 4 common beliefs. I'll see if I can dig that up. Mkweise 20:53 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

if i remember right, the supreme court also equivocated a lot in that legal definition and said, basically, "this isn't definitive, but it's the best we can come up with." I'd generally agree with most of the points listed, except #6,7,8 and 9. I've never been taught that one -needs- a guru to become enlightened, and I think the example of Gautama Buddha demonstrates otherwise. I'd say that a lot of the more philosophical strains of Hinduism frown on interpreting daityas & danavas etc. literally. And though in a general sense it might be true that Hindus believe all life is sacred (insofar as they believe everything is sacred), the extension of this to imply that "ahimsa" is universally prized and applied to non-injury towards other living beings is disputable. The Gita, for example, is a text which has been interpreted to mean that "ahimsa" does not prohibit specific acts of violence against material beings to ensure the greater good. And finally, though it's regrettable, parts of the Hindutva movement have questioned the idea that "Ekam sat, vipraha bahuda vadanti" and other such religiously-tolerant sayings mean that Hinduism accepts the validity of, for example, Islam or Christianity, and instead interpret such sayings as meaning there are many different folds within the Hindu faith. Though I find this a reprehensible development, I can't say that it implies they're no longer Hindus for believing so. Graft

So, here's the 1966 "legal definition" according to the Supreme Court.

Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters and acceptance with reverence of Vedas by Hindu thinkers and philosophers as the sole foundation of Hindu philosophy.
Spirit of tolerance and willingness to understand and appreciate the opponent's point of view based on the realization that truth is many-sided.
Acceptance of great world rhythm-vast periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession-by all six systems of Hindu philosophy.
Acceptance by all systems of Hindu philosophy of the belief in rebirth and pre-existence.
Recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are many.
Realization of the truth that numbers of Gods to be worshiped may be large, yet there being Hindus who do not believe in the worshiping of idols.
Unlike other religions, or religious creeds, Hindu religion's not being tied down to any definite set of philosophic concepts, as such.

Graft

As this is now a long page, maybe it would be good to give the Astika their own page, separate from this one? Yngwin 16:47 16 May 2003 (UTC)

See this diff for a large deletion by Ndpandit. The section didn't read well, and seems to me to be dubious (although I'm not knowledgeable in this area), but it could do with reviewing to make sure we didn't loose any useful information. -- sannse 14:18 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Somewhat amusing that the deletion was done by a "pandit", but ... having read through it, I largely agree with the deletion. The text describes one particular point of view on Hinduism (i.e., there was no such thing beyond a syncretism constructed through British influence). It's a particular point of view taken by nationalist groups, and makes a fair amount of sense from that perspective. If you are an oppressed group (i.e. the dalits) you wish to articulate demands from those in power. Therefore it is necessary for you to construct an identity for your group that separates you from that power group (in this case, the ruling Hindu elites). You could merely engage in a class war, but nationalism has many more advantages. So it's necessary to present a version of history that supports your story of a separate historical identity for your group. In this case, "dalits were never Hindus, the Hindus have only been calling us that so they can pretend to speak for us." How true this is, I'm not qualified to say... I haven't made a good study of the history and these claims. But, it's definitely not neutral, and would need to be heavily defended before I would be willing to accept it in the article. On the other hand, it -is- a significant viewpoint regarding Hindus, but I think it belongs in another article, maybe the one on dalits. Graft

Hi, this is the Pandit who deleted that portion. One really has to delve into the history of pre-independent India to get a good perspective on so-called anti-God (& anti-Hindu) Dravidian movement of early 20th century. For those who are interested, an excellent resource is -- India: A million mutinies now, by Nobel laureate V. S. Naipaul. It was written in 1989 so it is already somewhat dated, but it has captured the mood of the nation in a marvelous way. Coming back to the Hinduism article -- my main objection to the deleted portion has been somewhat covered by Graft. To this I would add: Not only is the deleted portion a very biased point of view, but it is likely that it would not find serious acceptance with any large group of modern Hindu soceity except for (a) the fringe elements like those who run websites like(blanked) (b) christian missionaries and the like. It is noteworthy that Ambedkar, one of the propounders of the idea, withdrew it and instead went on to head the committee that framed the Indian Constitution. Further, the deleted portion reads like an artificial appendage with no real connection to the main article. BTW, it is noteworthy that the groups that Graft calls as nationalists would likely be recognised as anti-nationalists by mainstream Indian soceity. Just goes to show the amount of disconnect between mainstream Indian soceity and western soceity -- or even between the "real India" and the Indian English media. To understand India, one has to go vernacular. Or read Naipaul. Ndpandit

I call them nationalist in the political science sense, meaning they define their politics around a particular identity and agitate for independence and self-government for that identity. I do not mean to suggest that they are pro-India, which, of course, they are not. Graft

To the person who keeps inserting the "historical note" - wikipedia has a policy on maintaining a neutral point of view in articles. I suggest you read this policy. Your additional text is in no way neutral. It is severely biased to a particular historical perspective. If you wish to include this perspective, I suggest you (a) do it in a separate article, as I don't think one group's idiosyncratic view on Hinduism belongs in this article, and (b) do it in a way that is neutral - that is, describe who has this point of view on Hinduism, possibly why, and on what grounds this view is contested. As you have it, the passage is not in any way neutral. Graft 01:20 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Again I would appeal to the people who seek to hide history: Neutrality means listening to all viewpoints on a particular topic. The current topic is 'Hinduism'. There are many divergent views of the meaning of the word. It is important, in the interest of free thought, which is what an encyclopedia is all about, to see all points of view on a topic.

The action of deleting is both cowardly and offensive. Deleting a portion would mean that your theories cannot face up to the facts.

Please present you own viewpoint which might seem neutral to your good selves but to an unbiased observer is just another viewpoint.

These Wikis and other institutions have originated in the West in the spirit of free thought, free enterprise, individual liberties, and so on. Since this is based in the West, please respect these institutions. Christianity itself can be put up to ridicule in the West and people are free to think what they want about it. Why are you guys trying to prevent your little words from being presented from a different viewpoint ?

Many concrete and valid points have been raised which you would do well to address.

Listen, you simply do not understand wikipedia policy. Stop inserting that text into this article. It does not belong there. This is not a "free speech" wiki, where you can insert whatever you want. It -must- attempt to be neutral. The phrase "The RSS philosophy is rabidly Hitlerist" is not neutral. If you do not understand why this is inappropriate for wikipedia, i ask you NOT to edit wikipedia articles.

I agree that many concrete points have been raised which should be addressed. I disagree that they should be done in this article - it is not the subject of this article - and I disagree that they should be done in the form you have included them - it is not Wikipedia:neutral point of view, which is the explicit policy for articles on this site. If you can find a way to satisfy these, then I will be willing to work with you. If you are only unwilling to listen to my concerns, then I must conclude that you are not willing to work with others in the spirit of Wikipedia. Graft 15:51 26 May 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Graft. For one thing, your appeal to a Wikipedia administrator reflects a misunderstanding of how this project works -- it is a community project. For what it is worth, I agree with many of your points (in the historical note) and think it is important content. But Graft is right -- it does not belong in this article. Create a new article: History of Hinduism or British colonial policy and the invention of Hinduism or whatever you want to call it, and place a link in the first or second paragraph this article. As I am sure you have noticed, the opening of the article makes it plain that the status of Hindusim as a religion has unclear historical roots -- that is an ideal place to add a link to another article that explores this issue in detail, Slrubenstein

Accepted.

I would just like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. I am used to people not understanding (or not being aware of) the six systems of Indian philosophy; this article is like a breath of fresh air. I have added articles on Ashtanga Yoga and Samadhi and I hope readers will improve them. David 23:43, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My Samadhi article seems to have been replaced by a nondescript (and insufficient) definition and its link removed. I no longer have access to the original text, so I cannot fix the article. David 21:05, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To User:Mkweise

1. As given clearly elsewhere in the main article page- Hinduism derives from Hindu- Sindhu- Indus and not Hindi as now added.

2.Most Hindus refer to themselves as Hindus, though they do identify themselves with sects. Anyway, this does not justify the stance taken in the intro.

3.What is given in the intro second para about gurus is a detail that does not deserve such priority in intro.

4. Religions originate 'in' places, not 'on' places. (And please don't use the word dammit at a well meaning, unknown person)

To User:Lir

Some of your edits are justified. But there is some cut and paste which does not fit and some incorrect info. Please do edits slowly.

KRS 18:26, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

(1.) Sindhu -> Hindus (referring to the people living across the river, not their religion) -> Hindi (the language) -> Hinduism.

(2.) I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "I am a Hindu"; rather, they say "Jai Swaminarayan" or "Hare Krsna", etc.

(3.) I don't like it that much either, I wrote that as an attempt to compromize, since you objected to my previous, briefer phrasing. Why don't you make another counter-suggestion, and we'll go from there (hopefully with input from others, as well.) Meanwhile I'll try and locate that article I read in Hinduism Today a few years back, which convinced me that the term Hinduism is just as inappropriate as Mohammedanism. In any case, the naming of other religions by Christians as "-isms" (normally reserved for pathological conditions) certainly wasn't NPOV and the contrary view certainly deserves mention, don't you think?

(4.) Use "in" with an abstract spatial reference, but "on" with a geological feature - e.g. "in India", but "on the Indian subcontinent"; "in Hawaii" (the State) but "on Hawaii" (the island). Mkweise 07:52, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree with the points KRS makes above. The current introductory paragraph is not neutral.

1. 1. To say that term Hinduism was coined by the British is ridiculously simplistic; you may as well say that it was coined by Iranians or Arabs because they used it first. The term evolved because of a complex interplay between Indians, Persians, and British/Europeans. As did the name of the country 'India', or the language 'Hindi'. And most Hindus do in fact refer to themselves as Hindus, especially in English.

2. I'd dispute that the term Dharma literally means 'Path' or 'Way'. The Sanskrit word 'path' literally means path or way! If Dharma has any English word as its literal equivalent, it is 'Duty'. Neither 'Path', nor 'Way' appear in the Capeller translation of the word Dharma.

Imc 20:30, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Help needed in Hinduism

Help.... neutral parties!! (from the Village Pump)

(Now I know exactly why people leave. If this (sort of edit war) continues,I will not be able to spend necessary time, money and effort on this page. Which leads to a sense of futility and self-introspection as to why one is here at all) KRS 18:11, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is only one factor of why people leave - they leave because they take stuff like edit wars, vandals, and nastygrams personally. If you feel yourself becoming genuinely angry, then take a whole week off Wikipedia. When you return things will, I promise, seem a whole lot more rational. Be well. -- Finlay McWalter 19:12, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, I intend following it. Though a very limited contributor, I have been wanting to step down my addiction to a level that allows time for more pressing, personally productive activities and saves on dial-up connection and telephone bills.This is the right time and pretext:-) KRS 12:23, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I took a look, and this "war" is kind of petty; key points of disagreement seem to include the use of "in" vs "on", and the ordering of sentences in the lead. Even so, it would be better to agree on factual points via the Talk page before tinkering with the text, but editors don't always notice those right away, so I usually put editing a page on the backburner for at least several hours after I've posted the talk request. It's not like WP is irreparably harmed because a page has mistakes on it for a day. Stan 19:56, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Its not so simple. Have you seen the entire history, or do you know in detail about the subject matter? The 'on' and 'in' are only minor irritants. Just for clarification- the three people involved are me- KRS, user Lir and user Mkweise . Lir seems to make fast edits, sometimes cuts and pastes, and in my opinion,picks on second hand info without being aware of the consequences of his/ her actions. Mkweise seems to be reasonably informed, but wants to convey a point of view.

Second sentence in intro- people, mainly knowledgeable ones and gurus are not happy with the nomenclature of Hinduism as it was abruptly applied by the English.

Even if true, it SHOULD NOT be included in the intro on Hinduism because this is neither a raging debate(like Mother Teresa)nor something which is a widely known fact. You can't undo the forces of history however hard you might try. Irrespective of whether the idea of India existed or not prior to colonisation, India as a political entity was forged out of anti-colonial nationalism. But we haven't disowned our political identity.Its the same with Hinduism, by whatever name one may call it, the majority of Hindus practise it today without wanting to change its name or are not even aware of something called Sanatana Dharma. But they are aware that Hinduism has evolved over thousands of years taking from Aryan, Dravidian and other influences, and that colonial rule has destroyed certain ways of life irretrievably. Maybe knowledge was constructed in a certain way in the past under colonial rule. But one only needs to understand this, not reconstruct it by forcing a change of name from Hinduism to Sanatana Dharma. Seeking to call it this by some people is an issue of minor detail and can feature elsewhere in the page. History shows time and again that such abrupt reconstruction is counterproductive. It is a sign of our times that many people today don't understand this.

third sentence in intro- Hindus prefer to identify themselves under sects rather than as Hindus.

This is a natural corollary to earlier statement. It is something which cannot be taken for granted today. Ofcourse, caste is still an important way of defining a Hindu in the religious sense,but in a civilised, secular world, Indians today consciously refrain from referring to their castes/ sects/ whatever. Someone living in India would know how delicate the whole issue is. I don't know whether the other editors are Hindus or resident Indians, but I would like other Hindu contributors to have a look at this.

Finally with all these longwinded statements, I just want to say that the intro on Hinduism should be on Hinduism as known till today cumulatively, and not include a wishful yearning for an ideal Hinduism / or non-Hinduism as in the hoary past. Out of the 3 sentences in the present intro, two are inappropriate.

I have tried talking through talk page and edit summary, but there was no response. Since Hinduism didn't seem to be a high traffic page, I had to bring the issue to the Village pump. I had infact tried to broaden the definition of Hinduism by bringing out the popular reference to it as a way of life rather than an organised religion, and this was there for sometime in the intro. But now it does not even matter whether this is there or not, there should definitely not be a narrowing down. KRS 21:15, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ive been editing there, I didn't even see an edit war. Whats the war over? I hope Im not involved... Lirath Q. Pynnor

Its not yet an edit war, but check my comments above.KRS 21:15, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject, and don't have interest beyond general curiosity, so I'm your ideal neutral party, and from my perspective I see that you have a great deal of intensity over what look like minor points. I reviewed the (long) history, came away with the impression that there were three editors simultaneously editing the same few sentences without any prior consensus or communication - a bizarre situation I hadn't seen on WP before. In those kinds of cases, it falls to the most aggrieved participant to back off and try to get the other editor(s) to engage in discussion. Stan 04:03, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Have done a bit of rearranging- put disputed points with a bit of rewording in overview along with other points on Hinduism elsewhere to make a consolidated overview. first intro para is only facts now. KRS 19:27, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Important points raised before-

1. Have checked in many books, for eg. Romila Thapar's- Hinduism definitely did not derive from Hindi,the language only the word Hindu.Moved origin reference to overview para.

2. Yes, Hindus, do identify themselves as sects, but they also identify themselves as Hindus. This sentence has gone into the overview in a modified form.

3. Nomenclature as Sanatana Dharma is one viewpoint of many, hence have moved it to overview para.

So intro para is now only fact, not disputed viewpoints. All viewpoints have gone into overview. (There are lots of viewpoints about Hinduism)

4. Grammar- on and in- I don't know and I don't care, so am leaving it.

Extra additions

4. Introduced new subheading for legal definition.

5. Merged later addition of scriptural overview(not relevant in the beginning) with pre- existing scriptural paras to create new sub heading.

KRS 19:52, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hinduism is not a religion but a group of interrelated religions. This is what scholar David V. Barrett wrote in his book the 'The New Believers' I agree with it, because, I think the various sects of Hinduism differ too much from each other to be considered one religion. Andries 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I know Hinduism has a concept of heaven and hell (swarga and naraka), but couldn't find any info on this page. I went to Hell and found various religional interpretations, but no Hinduism. Jay 13:16, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Hindu concept of Heaven and Hell is that these are places of pleasure and pain commensurate to one's karma, but they are temporary, and end once one's karma is exhausted. Finally, there is only oneness. As for heaven and hell names, there are many 'planets' or realms above and below earth. The highest are populated by ethereal beings who experience little or no pain and the lowest are those constantly racked and tortured by the senses. But, as I said before, these 'heavens and hells' are transient and in the end one has moksha from such physical realms.

Jesus

Jesus Christ page says that Jesus is considered as an avatar by some Hindus. Any idea which Hindu groups are these ? Jay 18:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are many modern Hindus who would accept Jesus as a great Avatar, though not one that was listed in any of the major Puranas. Here is a link to an essay by one such hindu teacher: Swami Amar Jyoti ?Gandalf 19:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would like to point out that while the ethnocentric attempt by Christians to diminish Indian culture and convert Hindu's to Christianity is viewed quite negatively, I have not met or heard of ANY Hindu's who do not accept Jesus (or Buddha, for that matter) as an Avatar/prophet, etc... Hindu's are as inclusionist as possible, accepting all true religions. "All paths lead to God". Everyone is part of Sanatana Dharma, know it or not, like it or not. Conversion is not only unnecessary, it is often seen as unhelpful, as Hindu's generally prefer one to live out their Dharma, which would (again generally) recommend an embrace of ones own cultural traditions as the handiest method of obeying God. Sam Spade 19:27, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hinduism acknowledges that there are many possible paths to the truth. This is definitely not the same as saying all paths lead to God; there could be lots of dead ends. It is amusing to see some Christians say, in effect, "My path is the only true one, and your religion says 'All paths lead to God', so change to my path." As one wit said, "If all religions are true, then I will start my own religion today, and it will be true by definition". Hinduism does not say that embracing one's cultural traditions is the handiest method of obeying God; if a true path differs from your culture, so be it.--SV 23:49, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assesment (are you Hindu?) of hindu viewpoints, but I would be happy to see how you might like these portiones rephrased, particularly if you might have a citation? I based what I said on personal conversations, but I'm open to other ideas so long as their accurate (and preferably cited). Sam Spade 02:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This may not be true. AFAIK, people who accept other prophets like Jesus are native Indians (who was converted to Hinduism by Aryans aka Brahmins). But, IMHO, most of the real Hindus or Brahmins call Jesus as bastard child of Mary.--Rrjanbiah 05:09, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wish to know, whom do you refer to as native Indians? Were they the ones who were existing during the pre-Vedic era in India? In any case, by all historical accounts, the entry of the Vedic civilization into India predate Jesus by a thousand years. What would make these native Indians (who you say have been converted by the Hindus) more open to the belief that someone who is to arrive a millenium into the future may be considered a part of the Hindu religion? Even if they had sustained that belief, do you believe they continue to carry the hypothesis for two thousand years to the present age? And do you continue to believe that the real Hindus have an entirely different point of view till this date?

If indeed, there were two streams of Hinduism, (one which accepts the prophets into the religion and predominantly made up by the native Indians and the other formed by the real Hindus and those who do not accept the prophets), can you please identify a few cultural segments from the Hindu society who constitute the two streams? (like, say - Protestants and Roman Catholics are two streams of Christians).

Please be sensitive to the audience before making an allegation. A talk-page is indeed, a place to share opinions but definitely NOT a graffiti stone-wall. Chancemill 12:01, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hold your horses! I said, people who are flexible to accept Jesus or other religion are native Indians; but the so called real Hindus or Brahmins never accept Jesus. AFAIK, most of the Hindu chauvinists call Jesus as bastard child of Mary. Anyway, the info which says Jesus is considered as an Avatar might be wrong. Now, you know who is sharing opinions...

As I said in the other thread, there is no consensus on the origin of any religion. If you would claim that religion X is the oldest or not invented or didn't convert any people or all people are born with religion X or it is better/older than religion Y, then obvioulsy you're a X-chauvinist.

Incase, if you're claiming one Hindus (sectless Hindus), could you show me a Brahmin who accepts Kali as a Hindu God though the worshipers of Kali is called as Hindus? As I said earlier, there is no consensus--you would claim superior unexisting systems if you're a chauvinist. -- Rrjanbiah 13:47, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rrjanbiah, I happen to be a Hindu Brahmin Iyer, who happens to Accept Kali as a Hindu Goddess. In fact I happen to accept all Gods and Goddesses which includes Allah, Jesus, Budha, X and Y. To me they are all different forms of One and the Same God, and to deny one is to deny all according to the philosophies that I have learnt/experienced/studied in Hinduism in my 22 years of existence. Please donot go about throwing words in the air. Let us make this a good learning process and not an arena where people challenge one another. Whoami 21:0 , 26 Mar 2004 (UTC).

Mate, you got the issue so wrong. I am not here to vouch for chauvinists in any religion. Nor am I going to answer any of your questions on Brahmins regarding/not regarding Kali as a Hindu God (as it is taking the issue away from why I was provoked to reply here) -- Chancemill 05:33, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC) (sig brought here for clarity)

You goofed up everything. See my reply below. It is not my intention to bring unaccepted gods here. But, as you claimed the streamless stuffs, I just pointed out that. --rrjanbiah

Could you please elaborate on this curious theory that I have never heard before :

I said, people who are flexible to accept Jesus or other religion are native Indians; but the so called real Hindus or Brahmins never accept Jesus. AFAIK, most of the Hindu chauvinists call Jesus as bastard child of Mary. Anyway, the info which says Jesus is considered as an Avatar might be wrong. Now, you know who is sharing opinions...

Which sociological factor can you quote for your assertion that native Indians are more flexible to accept Jesus as a part of the Hindu religion than the so-called real Hidnus.? Any references/ studies? Any subtantiated evidence or theories? If you can substantiate, I would be pleased to take note. else, please measure your tone. Your assertion that there can be no consensus is alright. That does not mean one can say anything and get away with it, either.Chancemill 05:33, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't misquote other's comments! I didn't say that Jesus is one of the gods of Hindus or Jesus is a part of the religion. What I said was native Indians accept any gods/religions easily than real Hindus. Incase if you're asking for sociological evidence, get into a typical shop run by a native Indian---where you'll see a Hindu god + Christian god + Muslim god. Now, visit a shop run by a typical Brahmin---where you can see only the Hindu god. Needless to say that Muslims or Christians can't get any religious offertory from a Brahmin shop, but can get the same in the other.

I'm not here to assert you any theories. I just shared my views on the above discussion as well as NPOV. If you believe only in proved theories/studies, where is your proof---which is accepted by everyone. That's why I already said, there won't be any consensus on any religious topics. YMMV. --Rrjanbiah 14:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not prolonging this issue further. But I certainly cannot make out native Hindus from real Hindus' from my 23 years of existence. I am glad this thread got archived. Chancemill 05:26, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

It is really sad thing to see that even after misquoting my words, now you're pretending to be polite. Again, you're misquoting my native Indian as native Hindu. Denying existing untouchability and other rituals especially when dealing with foreigners is not a new one/theory/custom. Anyway, I'm not surprised now. --Rrjanbiah 10:20, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So finally you do agree that User Chancemill has been polite in answering you. You have flouted all tenets of wikiquette when you say

"Denying existing untouchability and other rituals especially when dealing with foreigners is not a new one/theory/custom.".

Please explain, where user Chancemill has done what you have said. Secondly, who is a foreigner (please donot act funny by telling one who does not belong to your country)and where did he come into the picture?What has he got to do with anything with your personal tiff with Chancemill and why are u being so irrationally erratic in the way you are putting forward ur viewpoints?

I would request this user to please take his cock and bull story elsewhere if instead of performing knowledge sharing, he is more interested in knowledge slurring. Whoami 21:0 , 26 Mar 2004 (UTC).

I'm not going to answer you. It's utter waste to discuss with people who're interested in twisting other's words. Anyway, I wonder myself (not a question for you) how your viewpoints could be rational/non-erratic/scientific. EOD. --Rrjanbiah 05:22, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hindu Topics

Is there a list of Hinduism-related topics ? Jay 06:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks User:Arvindn for redirecting it to the correct article. I'm not sure, but is the convention to name "related article" lists as "List of X-related topics" rather than "List of X related articles"? Jay 13:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

buddhists and krishnas, etc..

Hello all, thought I would contribute something to the discussions.

There is an excellent book "Who is a Hindu?" by Koenraad Elst, it is available online Who is a Hindu?.
Legal definition of Hindu (quote from book above):

'Article 25 (2)(b) of the Constitution stipulates that “the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion”.1 The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 goes in greater detail to define this “legal Hindu”, by stipulating in Section 2 that the Act applies:

“(a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms and developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,

“(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion, and

“(c) to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion”.'
(From chapter 3)

rmhermen: About your question regarding Buddhism and Hinduism, another quote from the above book,
'We must compare the Buddhist ethical ideal with the (identical) standard of Brahmanhood expected of the Brahman born; we must contrast the Buddhist monastic system with the Brahmanical orders; the doctrine of Anatta with the doctrine of Atman, and here we shall find identity.'
(From chapter 10)

Comment- Hinduism could not have been derived from Hindi, half the Hindus do not have Hindi as the mother tongue.

Comment- If someone identifies himself with a sect, it does not mean he is not a part of a larger group. A student can belong to a class/grade, while he belongs to a school. Mkweise, when someone says "Hare Krsna", it is a given that he is a Hindu, it does not have to be mentioned separately.

-- SV

Hare Krishnas are DEFINATELY NOT Hindu. I've never met anyone who dislikes them more than those who are Hindu, particularly if they are pious. Krishnas twist and/or ignore everything they have come into contact with from the vedas, and are a classic cult (strict hierarchy, focus on $, isolation for family, focus on chanting, etc..). Sam Spade 02:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. As a citizen from a predominantly Hindu society, I can assert with full confidence that the Hare Krishna 'cult' is never termed 'Anti-Hindu' by members of the religion as you seem to suggest. This is not to apologise for the ills of the cult in any way, but as a pure factual point. Chancemill 11:04, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

You are referring to the members of ISKCON, they are not the only ones who chant "Hare Krishna"; many Hindus do so when they pray. And ISKCON teaches the Hindu bhakti philosophy. ISKCON philosophy --SV 04:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) what is an ancient persecution of hinduism?

ISKON is a great organization

All organizations have their share of scandals. ISKON certainly does. But behind all that is a very good organization. The books which they hand out are full of meaning and important truths. I highly suggest you read them.