Talk:Hinduism/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Priya's comments on caste replies

Let's consider another possibility. The current caste section, and HeBhagawan's new proposal, are too lengthy, I think (I've always thought the entire article was too long, and the sections should be presented in the most general terms, with a link to the more in depth WP article). As it now stands, the caste section is one of the longest sections in the article. It overemphasizes the importance of the caste system. But it can't be denied, in my opinion, that the caste system has strong ties to Hinduism, but it is overemphasized now. I propose a much shorter section, without enumerating the specific castes. Just a couple of paragraphs giving the briefest overview, presenting the different views in general terms. I also don't mean simply blanking those parts of the article that one finds disagreeable, as one editor did. I understand that so far any positive proposal is met with a bucket of cold water, so I offer this suggestion with humility and no personal POV. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath 20:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Priyanath, I hope I'm not casting buckets of cold water. I'm just trying to get the discussion to move forward with concrete proposals. Thank you very much for your input. Can you help to draft a version that would have the qualities you describe? The problem at this point is that everybody has abstract ideas, but we have only a few actual suggestions for how to implement the ideas. HeBhagawan 23:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagavan, The only reason I suggested the idea is that people seemed unwilling to vote for one of the current proposals. I also think that the section is too detailed, and so will never meet with approval from so many different editors. You're right, I didn't offer one of my own, but was only floating the idea to see if it was at all acceptable. Here is a suggestion, keeping in mind that there will be a link to the other article(s) on the caste system:

Hindu society was traditionally divided into four classes, called varnas, within what is commonly called the caste system. There is a great deal of controversy over whether the caste system is an integral part of the Hindu religion sanctioned by the scriptures, or is simply an outdated social custom. Proponents point out that various scriptures - including the Bhagavad Gita and Manusmriti - define the different castes. Opponents of the caste system point to scriptures, such as the Vedas, that give caste very little importance. There is also disagreement on whether the scriptures define caste as based on heredity, on occupation, or on a person's qualities.

The abuse of the caste system by using it as a means of oppression has drawn the attention of many social reformers, including Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948). As a result, India has passed laws against disrimination based on caste, and the caste system is becoming less and less recognized in mondern Hindu society.

I realize that this would need some editing, input, refining, etc. But why can't the section be this simple and short, with links to the other caste articles?

Added - HeBhagavan, your attempt to find resolution here is very much appreciated, on a topic that draws alot of heated emotions.

ॐ Priyanath 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Priyanath, I like your idea, with a little bit of refining, as you say. I am all in favor of making the section shorter than it currently is. I think we could even leave out the names of the specific scriptures in the main text (although they can be mentioned in the footnotes). Otherwise you are just asking for partisans to come charging in screaming "The Gita says no such thing!" or "The Vedas can never be interpreted to mean that!" Could you paste it above in the section above the voting so people can compare it with the other versions? Thanks for the input! HeBhagawan 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the specific scriptures, and will post it that way. The question is, can we get more than one person to agree on a specific proposal, considering all the different, and strongly held, Points Of View? But it's worth a try. ॐ Priyanath 00:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you change your version to the following, or something similar, I would be inclined to vote for it, providing we can incorporate some of the details into another article.

Hindu society was traditionally divided into four classes, called varnas, within what is commonly called the caste system. Caste was originally based on occupation, but later it became heriditary. There is controversy over whether the caste system is an integral part of the Hindu religion, or is simply an outdated social custom. Both sides in the debate quote selected passages from the scriptures to support their views. The problem of discrimination against people of certain castes has drawn the attention of many social reformers, including Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948). As a result, India has passed laws against disrimination based on caste, and the caste system is becoming less and less recognized in mondern Hindu society.

What do you think of that? It addresses the two key questions readers are likely to have: 1) What is caste? and 2) Is caste really supported by the Hindu religion? I think I can provide citations for almost everything in this paragraph too. HeBhagawan 00:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Priyanath's version seems good to me, but I would suggest adding some of the religious information from the other suggestions as they are obviously relevant to Hinduism's view of the caste system i.e.

The most ancient scriptures—the Shruti texts, or Vedas—place very little importance on the caste system, mentioning caste only rarely and in a cursory manner. Later scriptures, however, such as the Bhagavad Gītā (4.13) state that the four varṇa divisions are created by God, and the Manusmṛiti categorizes the different castes.[26]

AND

The saint and religious teacher Sri Ramakrishna (1836-1886) taught that

"lovers of God do not belong to any caste . . . . A brahmin without this love is no longer a brahmin. And a pariah with the love of God is no longer a pariah. Through bhakti (devotion to God) an untouchable becomes pure and elevated."[35]

ALSO ADD AT START

For more info visit Indian caste system

The above comments are unsigned. It's not clear who made them. Lethaniol? Sorry yes it was me Lethaniol 14:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC) :):)

HeBhagavan, I am all for your rewrite. I think simplicity and brevity are best, along with the elusive NPOV, and that does it.

Lethianol, Adding the more specific scriptural references would be fine in normal circumstances, but I think there will be objections from this POV and that POV, as we've seen. I also think that the longer the article, the more overemphasis we are giving to the caste system's influence of Hinduism. By mentioning the different prominent views, and the fact that it's recognition is in decline, I think we are doing it justice. Readers who want to know more can go to Indian caste system. Just my opinion. ॐ Priyanath 15:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on HeBhagawan's version

Have not seen other proposals yet would like to recommend some improvements that could be made to HeBhagawan's version.

• The history of the Caste system and how it developed from equal status to unbalanced is interesting - but is it possible to have dates for these changes so to put in a wider context
• From my limited UK experience, caste seems to be a still controversial issue in India - maybe this section of this version needs some expansion to further detail modern concerns.
• A minor point. The quote marks are not needed in the Sri Ramakrishna quote. By already being in quotes it is obvious it is quotes. Quotes are then used in these quotes if that author is quoting someone else.

Cheers --Lethaniol 14:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar HeBhagawan, your version is worded very well and with a very NPOV. However, as far as Hinduism is concerned, perhaps we should first, enumerate the varnas (as you've done), and then instead of going on to speak of prejudices, perhaps, discuss why varna is important in Sanatan Dharma, or how it functions within the whole. As I said, I found your writing to have a very NPOV, but it seems as if the only significance of varna (in the way that you've written) is prejudice and not function. Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 15:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Respected Shaiva, Thank you for recognizing my efforts to make the section NPOV. You also make some good suggestions. Would you be willing to draft a version that reflects what you are saying so that everybody can see what it would look like? If I like your version better, I will vote for yours instead of mine. Jai Shankar Mahādevāya HeBhagawan 15:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see that to some extent (if not all) this discussion is about whether or not their should be a caste section at all in the Hinduism article. As I have little knowledge of Hinduism I can not really comment, but what I suggest is if someone can find out whether the Caste system is mentioned in the Hinduism articles of other major encyclopaedias, and whether prominent Hindu websites/forums etc... have discussions on the caste system. I.e. what is the current opinion of caste and its relationship with the Hinduism religion. Lethaniol 15:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lethaniol,

This article is very long. If one wants to make a human religion, I think highest contributor could be Hindu doctrines. We have enough work to give right connotations of Hinduism to Hindus, Non-Hindus and our next generations. We have enough of work to remove notions about our millions of forms of God. Millions of pages of written material is on servers and yet millions of pages can be added. Unless we draw some line, we can't make the article centred around one point. One, is way of worship* which I believe should be centre of this article. Another is way of life and a seperate article should be created making Hindu way of life a centre point. In way of life, caste system can be described but mentioning of discrimination of caste and govt. policies etc. is a matter of history. History would certainly cover Hindu religion too but what we talk here is spiritual and religious aspects of Hinduism. Which should be a limit of this article. This should be understood by contributing editors. This was pointed out, this was viewed by some of the prominent Hindu editors of Indian origin like Bakasuprman, Saiva_suj. I am also saying the same thing. I think, Priyanath also agreed to this. We all agree that slightest mention of caste system is within limits. Bringing deterioration in our system due to individual thinking and individual proud is not going to do any good. Such things take place in any country or race. We have great deal of harmony in spite of having few hundred languages, varied religious beliefs, varied customs, varied way of worship, varied food habits. In spite of so much differences, we have similarities of duties of families (householders), joint family system, hospitality and so on. The reason of this harmony being our religion providing us necessary virtues and that's the real thing. That has got to be a matter of talk and not what individuals have spoilt. There is no need or no consensus to put this for vote. The social evil is on other side of the fence. Voting to include such thing is not proper. swadhyayee 16:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Way of preaching was a slip of pen, I have replaced it by right term "way of worship"swadhyayee 19:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Caste Not a part of Hindu Religion.

HeBhagawan,

I refer to your message on my talk page.

If, you can't understand what I want to say in spite of my devoting a lot of time and placing long series of comments, I am helpless. If, you can't understand me, how do you understand spiritual books is a surprise to me

In enough words, I said that caste system has no roots in Hindu religion. It seems to have been given shape by Rishis. You are complicating by bringing caste, deterioration of caste system giving probabilities, bringing Dalit things, bringing govt. policies. Why do you have guilt about any social discrimination generated in natural course for which you or me are not responsible? You are writing here on Hinduism, stick to religious and spiritual things. Is govt. policy a part of religious thing? Is religion directly responsible for social discrimiation which has roots in individual minds?

Since you have key-board on hand, you can't keep on writing anything. I am saying, first decide the axis of this article, Priyanath says he does not understand what is "axis". When I say that there has to be a central point around which the inclusions have to revolve, yet you don't understand. Probably, you are over worked and stressed and full of confusions. Pl. take a break or show some patience and you will understand. With tired mind you won't be able to understand.

I removed the paras as I felt and said, "this is controversial we will discuss. Pl. give 24 hrs." (18.17 of 7/11/06) yet you revert my edit at 18.53hrs. of the same day, just in 36 minutes with remark that "do not do major deletion without discussion." I asked whether these inclusion was after discussion then pl. give me date, I will check archive. I said that if this inclusion was without discussion, my removal is right. There is no answer to this query. I said that nothing cause damage if a para or two does not remain in article for a day or two.

I am giving my views. Bakasuprman and Saiva Suj gives his views that caste is not integral part of Hindu religion, yet you want to include, so you put it for vote.

Your interest to retain these paras make one think that 1) You want to dictate your will on everyone and for that you will put it on vote and wait till you get some of your friends come and vote in your support or 2) You want to promote particular theory, the reason for which you only know.

At the back of your mind, you think that the article belongs to you. This is the cause of dispute. Why can't you allow these paras to be dropped when editors like Baka, Saiva and if I mistake not Priyanath also comment no necessity.

You will understand only if you have will.

swadhyayee 15:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Swad, I agree that everybody should consider the merits of your edits. My only idea was that they should consider it on the discussion page before you incorporate it into the article, since it was a major edit. You are correct to note that you already suggested some specific wording when you made your edit to the article. I will post your edit above. If you would like to change any part of it, you may do so of course. The point of the vote is to get people to give some concrete suggestions, it is not enough to have vague ideas. It isn't enough to say what you don't want the article to say; you also need to explain what you want it to say instead. Axis: I agree with your axis idea. However, I don't agree that it is always obvious what is society and what is religion. The two overlap in many areas, and there are legitimate differences of opinion on where one ends and where the other begins. HeBhagawan 16:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Baka and Shaiva made some useful comments, but they did not comment directly on your deletion of 2 paragraphs. I'm not sure they even saw the edit you made which was reverted. Therefore, I have posted it above so that they can at least know what the debate is over. Note: Please don't read my mind. HeBhagawan 16:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan, Thank you for providing Swadhyayee's version; in fact, I had not seen it before. While I do value what his version tries to accomplish, it seems a little apologetic and lacking the NPOV that you strived for. Also, it seems to be discussing more of the social implications of the caste system, which I feel is unnecessary. I am not going to write a draft of this section, because I dare not to, however, I would like an experienced Hinduism editor to provide some information about the varna's role in dharma, and then perhaps '...the caste system in Kali Yuga has generated controversial social implications as described in [[some article]].'

If none of the experienced editors wants to write a draft like that, I'll try to maybe tomorrow.

Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 17:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have not provided any version. I am against including controversial matters like discrimination in society, Dalits and govt. policy. Govt. policies keep on changing and it has no connection with this subject. "Varnas" are not castes, castes are sub-divisions of "Varnas". Caste generated from Rishi's time. That's the reason, we each have a "Gotra" or "Gautra". "Varnas" are broad classification of humans. What is significant is, there is no discrimination amongst castes in Hindu religion or no declaration about lower and higher castes. It should have a place in the article and not some senseless things like, "due to this and this, so and so happened and now govt. is coming out with policies etc." As, someone told with the introduction of govt. policy people from other than scheduled castes are most sufferers. The worst part of the govt. policy is that they keep reservations for students instead facilitating enough number of educational institutions where even a student getting 40% can study medicine or engineering. Govt. has failed in this area and the people have suffered on this account. Let's keep it out for controversies, attacks, pros and cons of govt. policy. swadhyayee 19:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Shaiva, Thank you for your even-tempered comments. Remember, if you make a draft, you can use parts from the existing versions. You don't have to write it from scratch. I hope that makes it easier.

Swadhyayee, You say that you did not provide any version, yet the paragraph called "Swadhyayee's version" above is the product of your edits. If you have changed your mind and do not like that version, you are free to change it. Thanks! HeBhagawan 19:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan,

Pl. do not interprete what I want to say. You should under no situation do so. I am not happy Saiva thought it to be my version and commented. Let people read my comment and comprehend the comments their way. I am quiet un-happy on your drafting my version and placing it declaring that it is my version. Our mindsets are different and you can never present things my way. Even someone else also objected similar things in past. swadhyayee 19:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Swadhyayee, I did not draft it. I cut and pasted it directly from your edit. I have now placed a disclaimer next to it making it clear that you do not consider it your "version" (although I don't understand why, since it is exactly the version you are arguing should not have been reverted) HeBhagawan

I've added a conglomerate version of the two proposed sections (with some minor edits to wiki links). A lot of people will expect to see something detailed on caste in this article, but wether this would make it too long in comparison the other sections I'm not sure? Om Tat Sat, ys, GourangaUK 20:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Gouranga, Thank you for helping by making a positive, concrete suggestion. HeBhagawan 23:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan, I do angry that my tone is..

HeBhagawan,

I do agree that my tone is angry but does not mean to insult you. The thing which project Hinduism dimly does irritate me. You are not open to change and to serve the purpose, you go to any extent. I am sure that the two small contoversial paras I removed, were not included after discussion. I removed them with summary that give 24 hours we will discuss. You reverted this in 36 minutes. You will answer to anything, I will address to anyone but you did not answer to my question to Priyanath to tell whether a discussion had already taken than rough dates to help me to check archives. This indicates that no discussion had taken place while these two controversial paras were included. Priyanath has also kept silent.

First thing that you should have understood the paras I object were irrelevant and lower the quality of the article. At least you should understand after initial comments of Baka and Saivasuj.

If, they would have supported you, you would have told, Oh, Wah etc. and send them Barnstars also but when they could not support you, you put the matter for voting without consensus. I have never said caste should not be mentioned but you project as if I am telling to remove entire caste section. You go to the extent of providing my version. This all indicate that you possess the mentality to be one different and superior and not one of all.

The placing of the matter for voting is your one attempt to allow irrelevant things in the article. Now, you will invite every editors be it with knowledge of Hinduism or not. When your versions are not supported, you try to re-word them rather than dropping them.

This is too much. If you find me angry, the remedy remains with you to keep me cool.

swadhyayee 03:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Hinduism a Pandeism?

Pandeism describes a belief system in which God is identical to the Universe in a Pantheistic sense, but eschews directing the course of the Universe in a Deistic sense.... particularly it is used to describe a God who becomes the Universe, thus ceasing to function as God for the duration of the Universe.... is this compatible with Hindu thought? //// Pacific PanDeist * 04:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Hinduism is not Pan Deism. While the Universe exists, which is cyclic, God actually functions as the supreme ruler of the Universe. It is the period between the Aeons that God assumes His rue nature as the Cosmic Spirit. Pan-Deism is incompatible with any Hindu philosophy, although Hindus do believe that God transforms into the Universe and is immanent in the Universe. Cygnus_hansa 04:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a philosophy of Hinduism that may go along with "Pandeism". In Koshur Śaivism, during the process of creation, Ṣiva feels apprehension through His īccha śakti as in "If I become this universe, then I will lose the Subjectivity of my Self". At this point, He is known as Ānaśrita Ṣiva. However, when "remembering" His cit, ānanda and jñāna śaktis, He realizes that this is simply the glory of Ṣiva. It is said, that when the universe is created, there is no Ṣiva left that is not the universe, however, Ṣiva never loses the subjectivity of His self, and this idea can be seen in the very first aphorism of the first awakening of the Ṣiva Sutras: 'caitanyamātmā': Supreme consciousness is the nature of everything.

Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 15:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments-- they reminded me of some passages I read once before:

One high school teacher once told me that Sankara said that God became the world. In the beginning there was God and then he created the world out of himself. So God became the world. And now there is no God. It is exactly like making idli out of rice. The rice is gone; only idli is there. Later, I repeated this as Sankara’s philosophy to someone and he laughed so hard that I knew that there was some mistake in what I had said. But I didn't know what the mistake was and he didn't correct me either.

It is obvious. The mistake is that God is taken as parinami-upadanakarana, a material cause that undergoes a change. We require the technical term, ‘vivarta’, to understand this. Once we say Brahman is vivarta-upadana-karana, Brahman remains as Brahman. That alone will work. Satyam jnanam anantam brahma always remains the same. Its svarupa being what it is, it cannot undergo any change.

To understand the non-dual nature of Brahman, that there is nothing beyond Brahman and that the creation is not different from Brahman, this karana-karya-vada, discussion of cause-effect is the set-up. Through this one understands that all that is here is Brahman and I am not other than that Brahman.

Now I think I better understand this to mean that God remains God even as he is the Universe....

I have also seen this written:

To the Hindu, for example, God didn't create the universe, but God became the universe. Then he forgot that he became the universe. Why would God do this? Basically, for entertainment. You create a universe, and that in itself is very exciting. But then what? Should you sit back and watch this universe of yours having all the fun? No, you should have all the fun yourself. To accomplish this, God transformed into the whole universe. God is the Universe, and everything in it. But the universe doesn't know that because that would ruin the suspense. The universe is God's great drama, and God is the stage, the actors, and the audience all at once. The title of this epic drama is "The Great Unknown Outcome." Throw in potent elements like passion, love, hate, good, evil, free will; and who knows what will happen? No one knows, and that is what keeps the universe interesting. But everyone will have a good time. And there is never really any danger, because everyone is really God, and God is really just playing around.

I sense that the latter passage misunderstands the conscience of God as conceived in Hinduism, or at least that it is not reflective of all strains of Hinduism, but perhaps of a minor view. Certainly nothing in Hinduism resembles the more extreme ideas of PanDeism, that God created the Universe by blowing himself up, just to see what wuold happen if he ceased to exist for a time!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Caste

Please don't mention long stories of mental conjectures how caste arose and what govt is doing against it (actually the opposite: the politicians of India secretly want the illiterate masses to continue with the caste system to bake their own bread, eating all public money). Also, the varnas are not the caste system of today. Cygnus_hansa 04:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not neutral

This article is not neutral AT ALL. So many places it say Hindu idea as the truth when INSTEAD were supposed to describe Hindu beliefs as detached observers.Opiner 06:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why fighting for high or low moustache ?

The article is full of informations and in my opinion it is a well balanced article. There is nothing which can have any place for intolerance. Hindus are very very very intelligent, have power for tolerance, non-violent, well step taken and have so many qualities, which any community of the wolrd is not possessing. In my world tour, I have observed very keenly the charecters and qualities of the Hindus and I am proud of it, that I am born Hindu and again and again will like to born Hindu in every rebirth.

What is good or what is bad in the article, it could be a matter of discussions? After all we have to conclude the discussion somewhere. We should well honour and pay honour to our brother Hindus. After all they are sharing their views to come at the right conclusion. Nobody should feel that he have defeated or gained in discussion. Why we should fight for high or low moustaches? Hindus are intelligent, there is no place for any malice inbetween. "Nafarat hee sahi, dil ko dukhane ke liye aa" and "hamase hai jamana, jamane se ham nahin".user:Debbe 09 Novemebr 2006, 12:40 PM IST

I have repeatedly been saying that this article is not encyclopedic at all; I am also a Hindu but as a wikipedian, we are supposed to write these articles from NPOV and yes, detachment. It has nothing to with the fact that Hindus are intelligent or stupid. Cygnus_hansa 07:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mister Swan Swan. Exactly.Opiner 07:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

May you please explain what is non-neutral about the article? What are the biases present in the article? Saying that it is NPOV but not stating where it is, unfortunately is not going to help. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

To begin with and I really mean BEGIN WITH because there is much more problem than this but its the most basic. If Hindu believe something we say they believe it we dont say IT as if IT is true. ANY sentence which have this reading MUST be changed to be neutral. This isnt science where neutral could be probably or definitely true.Opiner 07:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't completely understand what you are saying. Can you give a specific example? Thanks Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In ten seconds I found this 'God is beyond time, space, and causation and yet permeates everything and every being. God is beyond gender. When God is thought of as this infinite principle, God is called Brahman. Brahman is the Absolute reality: it is pure existence and knowledge. Brahman does not exist; it is existence itself. It is not all-knowing; it is knowledge itself.' and this 'However, when human beings try to think of the infinite God, they project the limitations of their finite minds on God. The human mind cannot think other than in human terms. Therefore, it projects human limitations, such as personality, motherhood, and fatherhood on God.'Opiner 07:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

According to the monotheistic and pantheistic theologies of Hinduism, God is, in the highest sense, One: beyond form, infinite, and eternal. God is changeless and is the very source of consciousness. God is beyond time, space, and causation and yet permeates everything and every being. God is beyond gender. When God is thought of as this infinite principle, God is called Brahman. Brahman is the Absolute reality: it is pure existence and knowledge. Brahman does not exist; it is existence itself. It is not all-knowing; it is knowledge itself.

This is one of the paragraphs in a section that you claimed to be POV. The first sentence does say "According to the monotheistic and panthestic theologies of Hinduism." It doesn't straightaway say Brahman is this, Brahman is that. Do you want every sentence to say that "Hindus believe Brahman is the Absolute," "while Hindus also believe that Brahman is existence" and "Hindus claim that God is beyond gender" Is that all you want to be added in every sentence? Note that the last few sentences are talking about what Brahman is, ie) a description of Brahman. It will break the flow of the description if you want those bits and pieces to every sentence. Of course we should state that Brahman for example, is a Hindu notion. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes exactly that is what I want on every sentence. Every speculative statement of the philosophy to be referenced and attributed. Not ONE sentence to say by itself God this God that. Otherwise we can start the article According to Hindus and everything else after that the Hindu point of view! Maybe be with a reference at the bottom doesnt change how thats not neutral.Opiner 08:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this train of thought for the same reason DaGizza gives above. If the article states 'according to Hinduism...' and then speaks from the perspective of Hinduism that is not biased or POV. It is just more concise than repeatedly saying 'according to Hinduism xyz is abc' in each and every sentence. Surely no-one reading the article can take statements regarding God as factual - they are meant as being from Hinduism perspective - it's intrinsic to the article itself. Ys, GourangaUK 10:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Even NPOV may be tempered by common sense. The main purpose of an article on a religion is to elucidate that religion's worldview. Of course it should be made clear who precisely within this religion holds certain things. Opiner seems to assume there is such a thing as "the Hindu point of view", while in Hinduism in particular, diversity is so great that it is difficult to make any statement at all that holds for its entire population of adherents. And of course criticism from outside the religion may be discussed if pertinent. And of course, every statement must still be sourced, after all Wikipedia itself is no authority on Hinduism, for statements on "God this or God that", we still have to make clear for every one where we got them. However, NPOV does not dictate that we break article flow after every such statement to say "according to atheists, assorted monotheists, Mbuti mythology, and Derrida, things are different" because that isn't our topic here. Looking over it I must say the article looks rather better than it used to. It is quite an achievment to summarize such a diverse topic at all, but it is again much too long. We have pruned it below 65k in an FA bid. It is again above 90k. It seems that people have the tendency to pile up material on their favourite subsection and ignore the overall structure. You have got to reduce its size again, sorry. dab (ᛏ) 10:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Had a look at the Christianity article for comparison. They have a section on Beliefs there (maybe a structure that could be considered here) but even in that section each paragraph states at start "Christians believe ..." (and many versions of), but not for every statement on belief. Therefore I think Opiner is plain wrong and taking NPOV to the extreme. I agree with Dbachmann and DaGizza - we need to temper articles with common sense. Though I agree with Opiner and Dbachmann that all statements saying that X believes Y should have appropriate references. :):)

Lethaniol 11:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be held to strict standards of NPOV. However, as others have noted, this does not mean that we have to begin every sentence with "Hindus believe." As Gouranga correctly notes,

Surely no-one reading the article can take statements regarding God as factual - they are meant as being from Hinduism perspective - it's intrinsic to the article itself.

If you qualify every sentence, you will double the size of the article. But citations are very important, as Db says. Further, I am strongly in favor of a high moustache. HeBhagawan 12:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I second the motion for a high moustache. Higher than a pathan on opium! :D Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 17:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Brothers, Somebody please see Nina's opinion on talk page of HeBhagawan [[1]] What our sister has to say in the matter? swadhyayee 18:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar. It seems to me she wants more information about the caste system--instead of omissions. Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 21:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Can HeBhagawan give it to her on her talk page or through e-mail or has it got to be on this article? Would she be interested to know the names of castes, tribes everything? I am just interested to know whether there is any tool in Wikipedia to find out who read a particular article and for what time duration? swadhyayee 02:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Official Hinduism?

Look like Advaita Vedanta being the official Hindusm here. Saying Hinduism polytheism is misconception? No saying ALL hindusim polytheism is misconception BUT equally wrong to push this one super-philosophical view as THE Hinduism. Im pretty sure writers of the Rg Veda didnt think in this way!

Who picking out these vakyas? We can quote different things for totally different impression. Looks like the original research.Opiner 02:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

These are traditionally called the maha-vakyas, as stated in the Nikhilananda book (and other sources). Unnecessary philosophical musings: I think that the so called musings in that section are necessary to explain the concepts to people who may be unfamiliar with them. Advaita is of course not the official Hinduism. There are many views, of which Advaita is only one. Relatively few Hindus are strict advaitists. However, the idea of oneness is an important part of the article for two reasons: 1. there is a common theme of unity throughout nearly every Hindu school of thought. It may not be Advaita exactly, but there is a general concept of harmony and unity. 2. In order to remain intelligible and a reaonable length, the article has to focus on the things that all schools of thought generally agree on, highlighting only major differences. Minor disagreements should be in their own articles. Otherwise there would be no end to the length and complexity of the article.HeBhagawan 02:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Youre right these ideas need be here BUT lets try to keeping them short and simple on the main idea. At certain point it cross the line into the preaching instead of the representing. This will help keep the article size smaller AND giving room for other traditions of the Hinduism. Everyone complaining saying its too long so that means we gotta edit things.Opiner 02:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Opiner is right about the philosophy nonsense, Keep that short and sweet. Anyway, Hinduism is being more stratified as the fastest growing sects are BAPS, ISKCON, Agama Hindu Dharma, and other groups in the Survey of Hindu Organizations.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Opiner and Baka to talk straight. Opiner, if you are referring to Vakyas which HeBhagawan is answering as Mahavakyas, "Aum Tatvamasi", "Ahm Brahmasmi" etc. are Mahavakyas. There are altogether five Mahavakyas. swadhyayee 03:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Opiner and Baskar, I agree with you. Opiner I especially appreciate your efforts to make various articles NPOV. That is a noble effort because there are so many POV editors out there. Just be a little careful making sweeping changes too quickly. Sometimes, if you delete one part of a section, the later part will no longer make sense, so try to keep that in mind. I agree with your general approach of NPOV. The tricky thing to do--and it is really tricky in an article on religion--is to somehow avoid letting one point of view dominate, while still keeping the article somewhat coherent. So just be careful with major edits, and try to discuss them here first. Notice how much discussion has gone into the section on caste. People are really trying to work together, which is really good to see. HeBhagawan 03:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Advaita Vedanta is probably the most influential Hindu philosophy but it isn't the most popular. In fact the majority of Hindus don't have a strict philosophical view. This is mainly reserved for the pundits, gurus and swamis. Every village or particular area of India will tend to have a few pundits or swamis who influence the people's views. But at any instant of time I can assure you that there will be more Hindus praying to a deity for good fortune or some other favour than thinking about being liberated from their atma. As for re-shortening the article, I suggest integrating the "Vedas" section early on in the article with the "classification of scriptures" section at the bottom. The merged section should be placed in a higher part of the article. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar, all. This is sort of what I was trying to talk about before. While I do believe all of you, though especially HeBhagawan, have strived to no end to maintain the NPOV, I think this article is very difficult to write, when written in this manner. Please keep in mind that, ultimately, dharma is what your preceptor tells you it is. I would also like you all to note that even if you have never been initiated or claim to be a disciple of anyone, you will still be disciple to anava. Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

To elucidate my point further, allow me to present this analogy: what would a wikipedia entry for the recipe for (if you're south indian) pulihaara or sambar, or (if you're Western) meatloaf or somesuch be like? "What?! Put tamarind in?! Never! You must add karvepaak!" and surely someone might opine, "Oh, well let's add them both." And the result of course would be close to "This is revolting". Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 03:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Saiva, Good analogy!

Opiner, Saiva, and others: Please vote on the caste issue above if you have any opinion. I would like to wrap up the caste issue as soon as possible. Thanks! HeBhagawan 04:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Very good said Saiva. Mix meatloaf & Sambhar? swadhyayee 12:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Article should be segregated in different sections and catagories pages

The article should be splitted and should be transferred to the new pages as is done in Raja Yoga article. By this way, the controversial parts for discussions will be segregated and those who want to contribute in constructive way, they will participate constrictively and will try to make concensus upto the conclusion. This is a big article and many thoughts came together simultaneously to every mind and "Munde Munde matirbhinna" will always create problem which will be endless.user:Debbe, 10 November 2006, 17:45 [UTC]

I think, Deb it is Tunde, Tunde Matirbhinna. I am not so sure. swadhyayee 12:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a Sansakrit Language sentence that means "Every head and each head have different different intellect/wisdom/opinions. That means "every person have his own intellectual capacity, which differs from person to person". I dont know about tunde tunde matirbhinna. Tunda is a word in Hindi language, which is used for those, who have one upper arm or hand for male and Tundi for female. Tunda is singular, while Tunde is plural. user:Debbe 10 November 2006, 10:50 IST

The voting

1. Do you know what is really interesting about the voting on caste above? Almost none of the people have voted on their own versions. This indicates to me that the editors are really trying to be fair and objective. Good job, everybody. (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with voting for your own version; just that it is a good sign when people are willing to choose something because it is good rather than becasue it is theirs).
2. Even though I changed my vote, and am no longer voting for my own version, it seems to have the most votes. I think that pretty soon we should incorporate the winning version into the article. However, I don't want anybody to be unhappy. If anybody would be extremely unhappy with this result, we can have another runoff vote between the top two vote-getters, which would be my version and "Swadhyayee's version" (although Swadhyayee doesn't like calling it that). If we do a runoff we can change the names to Version 1 and Version 2. If nobody requests a runoff vote, then I think we should incorporate the winning version into the article. Thanks to everybody for your participation in the democratic process!

HeBhagawan 13:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's incorporate HeBhagawan's version into the article. But I think so many people voted for, and made comments about, the article being too long, that we should allow for some trimming. (see: two votes for Baka's short version, two votes for my short version, two of the five votes for HeBhagawan's version suggested shortening.) Not blanking, which causes an article to lose coherency and context, but appropriate trimming. ॐ Priyanath 17:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A trimmed version of HeBhagawan would be perfect. Gizza^{Chat ©} 17:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We already have Indian caste system to discuss caste among Hindus. A small paragraph with a link to the main article is more useful.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (with Priyanath), providing that after the trimming readers unfamiliar with Indian / Hindu society will still be able to understand 1)what does the "caste system" refer to? 2)Why is the caste system controversial? and 3) What is the current status of the caste system? Remember, almost everybody here already has a basic understanding of what the caste system is, but many non-South-Asian readers will not know anything about it, so we have to explain a little. How about first posting it, and then suggesting the trimming here? Otherwise we'll be right back where we started. HeBhagawan 19:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have my objections if it has value. Pl. Wait. Will detail later. swadhyayee 20:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody, for working together to figure this out. Even though it is a laborious process, I think it is better than fighting and getting into edit wars.

The voting was in favor of HeBhagawan's version. We should put it up, as is, and leave it there. That's a legitimate way of resolving disputes on Wikipedia. Then, any changes beyond that should be discussed here first, also per Wikipedia guidelines (not a rule, but a suggested way of resolving editing disuptes that get too heated). ॐ Priyanath 20:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Sounds good to me, Priya. You are right that we shouldn't change it since that is what people voted on. If we need to do a runoff vote as per anybody's objections, we can always go back and change. Swadhyayee, of course your objections have value. When you get a chance, just tell us. Namo Narayanaya. HeBhagawan 21:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagwan and Priyanath, while I do appreciate your initiative for discussion, what can be explained better at Indian caste system should be kept there, with maybe a one paragraph descriptor on this article. The article is way too long (93 KB) and per WP:SIZE definitely needs to use the subarticles Karma in Hinduism, Reincarnation, Indian caste system, Agama Hindu Dharma, Vaishnavism, Advaita Vedanta, etc. Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Baka - that's exactly what I've been saying. Shorter would be better. Let's start to trim this down. ॐ Priyanath 03:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The real issue was my removal of two paragraphs from caste, see this [[2]].

Instead of discussing or inviting vote for the issue, "whether to remove these two paras or not" a new version of caste was introduced which helped sidelining the main issue.

Never expected but HeBhagawan invited Mike, PelleSmith‎ and NinzEliza on their talk page. NinzEliza for having commented something on Indian movement of Buddhism (not sure of correct name), PelleSmith for making some comments on talk page (?) of Islam. I have my doubts whether these people rightly understood the issues but barring NinzEliza voted in support of HeBhagawan's version without considering the relevancy and pros & cons (length of the article).

Again HeBhagawan is approaching talk page of Priyanath, see this [[3]] and presenting a version with "higher" and "lower" caste and justifies lengthening of this article. I fail to understand what HeBhagawan is upto? Everyone with the background of this article agree that caste is not integral part of Hinduism and it should be just mentioned here as brief as possible. Why HeBhagawan is so adamant to include ir-relevants?

HeBhagawan while seeking votes from Mike etc. made them feel that the issue was of POV or NPOV. Today, we have two controversial commission reports on Gujarat riots beginning from setting ablaze a train. Banerjee's report has been made held not valid by Supreme Court. Suppose one editor lay one's hand on any of such citation, are we going to include the riot issue in this article feeling that it is NPOV? Similarly, if the caste was subjected to social prejudice, why should the effect of such prejudices find a place in this article? swadhyayee 05:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles should be concise, but I think that it is also worth considering that one of the biggest advantages of Wikipedia over other dictionaries is that you are not so limited by the space between the covers of a physical book. An article about a big, important topic like Hinduism should be longer than many other articles. Not extremely long, of course--but longer. Wikipedia policies support the view that certain articles may deserve to be longer than the recommended length based on their subject matter. While I believe in moving things to sub-articles, the main article should be long enough to give a decent overview. Priya and Baka, I'm not worried about you getting overzealous with deletions, becasue you have a record of good judgement, but I am a little worried about others getting carried away. Personally, as a reader, I would usually rather err on the side of an article having more information than I need than not enough. Also, don't forget that the article seem a little longer than it actually is becasue of the large amount of space taken up by footnotes and references. The article is currently 25 printable pages long, including the footnotes, references, table of contents, and pictures.

All that said, if we do start trimming, I think that a good place to start is in the "Themes and symbols section." Let's cut, but cut carefully. Think about how the things you cut out will affect the rest of the section you remove them from. HeBhagawan 04:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, Thanks for the comments. I still don't see why you object to others offering concrete proposals. You seem to suggest that it should only have been an up or down vote on your version--a take it or leave it type of vote. Everybody has a right to be heard, and to have their proposals considered. I don't understand why you think this is a problem.

As for inviting people to vote, I think it is a good idea. Of course, it would not be right to call all your friends and ask them to vote in your favor regardless of the merits. But nobody did that. I invited a few people who have no connection with this page to vote becasue I noticed that they were very thoughtful and fair based on their approaches to disputes on other articles. There is nothing wrong with getting some input from outsiders--in fact it is a good idea becasue they are not personally embroiled in the controversies on this page. In no case did I ask anybody to vote for MY proposal--and in the end I even voted for another proposal myself.

As for whether everyone who voted gave due consideration to all the pros and cons, who knows? The discussion was there for them to read.

I agree with your general idea that the article should focus mostly on religion rather than society, but, as I have said before, society and religion overlap a lot. You can't discuss one without at least making some comments about the other. HeBhagawan 18:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan! If you want to understand, you can understand. The fact is you are not in position to see wrong in your work or thinking. Just see Baka is not taking regular interest though a good Indian editor. He has been trying to tell you to drop the things. Priyanath also says so. Others like Dagizza also told so. When everything was over, you are going to Priyanath with caste hiher lower inclusion. You are not able to leave the thing that is fixed in your mind even if wrongly. Suppose you are told to write in 200 words of how you passed your vacation? What you do, you pick up only most significant things. When you want others inclusions to be removed, you argue to observe brevity. When you want your things to be included or retained, you argue in favour of length (as you are doing on Priyanath's talk pages. When you want to include something and people support, you say it is people's will. When people tell you to remove something and you want to retain, you keep on persuading like you do to Priyanath after vote. Just think, there has to be end to your taking other's time. Since, the other editors don't tell you in stronger words, you keep on arguing and pursuing. You will try to re-word and retain things you wish. This is not right. This is not good. swadhyayee 22:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Swadhyayee,

1. Do I prefer to have things my way? Well, sure, I suppose everybody has an opinion about the best way to do things. But I won't unreasonably insist on my views of how the article should be if most others disagree. I dare say that you too have distinct preferences for how things should be. There's nothing wrong with that so long as you are civil and cooperative, and follow Wiki policies. In fact, that's what you are supposed to do: discuss why you favor a particular edit, state your reasons, provide citations for your proposals, and find out what the community thinks about it. Then, if necessary, come to a compromise that as many people as possible can live with. I may not do all these things perfectly, but I'm making a good faith effort. Lately I think you have been acting in good faith too, so congratulations.
2. Do I give due consideration to others' opinions? Yes--that was the purpose of the vote.
3. Is it possible to persuade me to another view? Absolutely. Give me a convincing argument and I'll change my mind. Priya did exactly that in the vote, which is why I voted for his version.
4. Should I be blamed for considering more than one factor at a time (brevity, community concensus, importance of information)? I don't think so. The key is to balance all these concerns. If you focused only on brevity, then, well, you'd probably want to delete most of the article. You have to consider everything together. In a religion article, you have to strike a balance between so many things: NPOV, brevity, informativeness, citations to authority, community concensus, etc. It's all important.
5. Finally, one thing to keep in mind:

Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. This does not mean that you have to agree with the other person, but just agree to disagree. [[4]]

Let's try to maintain a positive atmosphere here, eh? We can all be friends! HeBhagawan 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Shakti

It has been brought to my attention that the articles on tantra and shakti need some serious work. Does anybody who has knowledge or good resources in this area want to work with me on those articles? HeBhagawan 03:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, these articles do need work. Major work. I am willing to work on the Shakti article even though I am not particularly knowlegeble in that area, but I would love to help.--^ॐ Seadog ^ॐ 04:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Arjun! We have a lot of work to do. HeBhagawan 05:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I am very willing to help expecially on the weekends. I think the article needs an image, but the question is what image does it need?--^ॐ Seadog ^ॐ 13:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It could definately use images, especially pictures of God as the Divine Mother (e.g. Durga or Parvati). However, I think that pictures are the least of our worries right now. The information these articles contain is awful. I have a few books from the library, although I took many of them back already. If you can get any, it would be great. It can be books that are specifically about tantra and shakti, or just books about Hinduism that include discussions of those. Be careful with the tantra books, though--I don't think we want the western-style tantra books that tend to be fixated on the sexual aspects of the tradition.HeBhagawan 13:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree but my public library has only 3 Hinduism books and none of those contain any info on Shakti. If anyone has any that would be great.--^ॐ Seadog ^ॐ 15:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking up on it! We can also use web sources, although they are often less reliable. As a last resort, we can use general knowledge, but of course anything we write from that perspective can be deleted by anybody who disagrees with it. HeBhagawan 16:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have surfed the net a little bit and I honestly can't find "high-quality info". I shall keep looking.--^ॐ Seadog ^ॐ 21:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Our roots are in Tantrika Parampara, and I know as much as I can about its nature. The problem I've been having with those articles is that every other contributer seems to be determined to talk about sex. It's kind of embarassing, and fairly insulting. After all, they've created an article called neotantra, and yet they disgrace the Tantrika Parampara itself with such foulness. And it's not possible to really remove their changes as they say, "Oh, I have a reference: Prof. Whatshisname of University of Westerners said this about an esoteric tradition he knows truly nothing about!" Sorry for the outburst, it has been bothering me for some time. Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 15:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Vivekananda pic

What happened to the Vivekananda picture? Does anybody know how to fix it?HeBhagawan 16:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the width, to 300px, and that fixed it. I don't know why, but I've seen this happen before. The picture is bigger than others on the page now, but at least you can see it. ॐ Priyanath 16:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That is weird, but look at the Krishna universal form picture. It is now gone. This is very weird.--^ॐ Seadog ^ॐ 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Priyanath! That is wierd, but it looks like you figured out the key to the problem. Good work! HeBhagawan 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying

Swadhyayee, what exactly are you trying to do with your edits in the article? I thought the table of contents looked very good the way Arjun made it. HeBhagawan 22:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he wanted to see how it would work, he never actully bothered with the Tocleft but he addded a large gap in the editing window. I also removed a picture that would not work.--^ॐ Seadog ^ॐ 23:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

addition to external links

I am Harsh Nevatia, writer on Hinduism at suite101.com. I desire to add my main page "[link removed]" to the external links section. Please advise how this can be done. I can be contacted at [link removed].

210.18.165.11 02:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Harsh Nevatia

Unfortunately you are not allowed to add your website. This is known as spam or advertising and Wikipedia cannot be used for this purpose. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Naivedhya and Prasad

Naivedhya refers to food which is not yet offered to The God but prepared with the intention to offer it to The God. Once, offered and brought back for distribution it becomes Prasad. It no more can be referred as Naivedhya. People often call Naivedhya "Prasad". This distinct sense of both should find an appropriate place in this article. swadhyayee 11:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Do others think that this is important enough to include in the main article? I tend to think that such details would be more appropriate in the article on Puja or something. But I'm open to including it if others want it. HeBhagawan 16:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the need of writing that people buy food from outside and offer.... swadhyayee 17:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It just illustrates part of the process. Perhaps it is not essential. I don't object if you want to delete it. As for the "naivedhya"/"prasad" distinction, it seems to me to be more or less implied. If it becomes sanctified prasad after being offered, then a fair implication is that it is not "prasad" before being offered. I don't see any reason to add an extra sentence or two explaining it, at least not in the main article. HeBhagawan 19:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair implication in your view may be that "Naivedhya" is not "Prasad" but "Naivedhya" is referred to as "Prasad" widely. Will you some day try to learn than teach? swadhyayee 02:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee,

Your comment,

Will you some day try to learn than teach?

was unhelpful. Please review this [[5]], this [[6]], and this [[7]]. Thank you! HeBhagawan 02:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: Do Naivedhya and Prasad refer only to food offerings, or to offerings of any kind (flowers, clothes etc) ? The current discussion o the Hinduism page is not very clear on this and I can attempt to rephrase it once I know the answer. Abecedare 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the food and flowers function in the same manner, however, upon different things. The fruits, sweets, etc. are used to bring blessing within oneself, and within one's family members, etc. The flowers are to radiate blessings externally, enriching the environment of the home, car, etc.

Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 14:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Abecedare's copyedits

I copy-edited several sections of the Hinduism page earlier today. I think the page content is quite impressive, but it could use some more copy-editing for length, grammar, clarity etc., and I'll be glad to contribute in the coming days/weeks. Since most of my upcoming edits will not change the page "content" I would prefer not to discuss each of them in advance on the Talk page, although I'll try to write informative edit summaries. Obviously I'll be extra cautious in editing 'controversial' sections, such as the one relating to the caste system, at least till am I am conversant with the community here. If any editor here objects to this approach, or any of my edits in particular please drop me a note.

Lastly thanks to HeBhagawan for the the polite welcome Abecedare 22:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow! - An editor who's working on length, grammar, clarity! Be still my heart! I'd like to welcome you too, Abecedare. Good work! ॐ Priyanath 01:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I second Priyanath's comment!!!!! HeBhagawan 01:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Add NPOV-section

Hi. I am Fred-Chess and am acting as advocate of swadhyaye.

As #Votes on the above proposals for shows, there is no consensus on how the section of the Indian caste system should be formulated. The idea of organising a poll to determine the best way to phrase a section is inappropriate. Some relevant links: Wikipedia:Consensus (guideline) and meta:Polls are evil (often referred to essay).

My apologize if I have misunderstood the development of that particular section after the poll was made.

Fred-Chess 20:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fred, Polls are not perfect. You are right. In this particular situation, what do you suggest we do instead? Thanks for your input. HeBhagawan 00:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I want to point out that my knowledge of Hinduism is about nil.

In general, it is a good idea to outline structures after standard literature. Take a look at the Encyclopædia Britannica or an encyclopedia of religion, see how they formulate the article about the caste system. Then model the formulation after that.

Those who object would need to cite a reference that use a different model.

When it comes down to mere wordings, it is just a matter of finding a decent wording that no-one finds objective.

Fred-Chess 12:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you mean "that no one finds objectionable." :) Your suggestions are good. The only difficult point is finding a wording the no one finds objectionable. That is exactly what we were trying to do by having everyone suggest their own wordings. In the end, there was no single wording that everybody agreed on. So we had to go with the one that the most people agreed on. I suggested a runoff vote to try to build more concensus, but nobody seemed to be in favor of that--not even the people who voted for the non-winning versions. The caste section, as it currently is presented, is roughly modeled on the way it is presented in other encyclopdeia. Your suggestion is good. In fact, it has already been followed. HeBhagawan 13:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Scriptures

I recently copy-edited the Classification of scriptures section, and noticed that its material significantly overlaps with The Vedas and later scriptures and thus creates a lot of redundancy/excess length. I propose that we merge the two sections into one, perhaps titled "Hindu Literature" or "Hindu Scriptures" (other suggestions welcome) with an introduction based on the some of the current content of Classification of scriptures and two subsections titled Sruti and Smriti where the actual texts are described (in short).

Any suggestions and/or objections ? Abecedare 20:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to put Gita in smṛṭi? It is true that Mahābhāraṭa is Iṭihasa, however, Gita is considered by some to even be an Upaniṣad. Perhaps we should at least mention this. I am for distinguishing between śruṭi and smṛṭi.

Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 21:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I don't know either way. If you can verify the information, I think we can add edit the content along the following lines: "The Bhagavad Gītā is described as the essence of the Vedas, and as such lies at the intersection of the artificial Shruti - Smriti divide. In fact, it is even classified as an Upanishad by some." It will also be useful to add a citation for this statement. Your thoughts ? Abecedare 03:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to think that the classification of scriptures section is not completely necessary at all. I think it should be in its own separate article. That would cut down on the length of this article a lot. I don't really think that the classifications should be combined with the "Vedas and other Scriptures" however. The classifications are less essential than the teachings, so if the classifications are going to be in the article at all, I think it is best to put them at the end. Just my opinion. HeBhagawan 00:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. I deleted some redundant stuff from the Shruti section, and at this point I think the classification of scriptures is looking good, and is in a good place.HeBhagawan

Here is what I had in mind. I have tried to combine the two sections mentioned above into one, without (at least intentionally) deleting any content. Yet, as you'll note the amalgam is shorter than the sum of its parts - which I consider to be positive. And to address HeBhagwan's point: I agree with you that the classification of scriptures is not a relevant detail for this page. I use it just as an aid to break up, what otherwise would be a long essay, into more digestible sections.Will appreciate any feedback Abecedare 03:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Abe:

1. I like your idea of breaking it up into digestible parts and it is also a boon if the sections can be combined to make them shorter than the sum of their parts.

1. I don't think we should call your new section "Open Canon." I would prefer something like "Many Paths, Many Scriptures." If you say "Open Canon" it sounds like that is almost a dogma or doctrine. Open canon is not a formal doctrine; it's just the way the scriptures are treated in practice. There are probably some who would charge in alleging that the article is incorrectly claiming that the scriptures specifically call for an open canon if you make it the heading of a section. But I don't think anybody will complain if you call it an open canon within a section called "Many Paths, Many scriptures."HeBhagawan

I have replaced the two sections with the merged version. I have changed the subsection heading from "Open Canon", to "Many Scriptures, many paths" - you made a good point that the former section title was likely to be misunderstood as a religious diktat, rather than the word choice of a single wikipedia editor! We need a section heading in the first place, (1) as a delimiter between that content and the Smriti section, and (2) because in my opinion, the openness to other scriptures, should be discussed after we have at least outlined the fundamental shastras.

Hopefully other editors here will be able to further improve this section. For instance, in interest of length perhaps we can remove the summary of Upanishad teachings from this section since that is dealt with, and indeed is a major theme, of other sections on the page. On the other hand the summary is particularly cogent. Anyone with ideas ? Abecedare 16:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahimsa, vegetarianism, and the cow

Namaskar. The title and content of this section to me seems random. I specifically don't like "the cow". I agree that vegetarianism should be included in Ahiṃsa, however, that in turn, should be listed under a section on Yamas and Niyamas. I can understand that especially Westerners are very curious about the cow that we "worship", but if we must keep it, it should be in its own small section, with a link to the Sacred Cow article, though I have not read it yet.

Also, in the section about the Ashramas of life, I would like to mention the pilgrimage of Brahamana Brahmacaris before (possibly) becoming gṛhasṭas. I understand that the length of the article is an issue, but I feel that Yama/Niyama is more important some of the other content we have there (like snana...I was very surprised to read about that there. if things like that are included then why not pradakshina, and other very very particular/peculiar things?).

Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Śrirāma Rāma Rāmeṭi Rame Rāme Manorame
Sahasranāma Tattulyaṃ Rāma Nāma Varānane
Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 22:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Shaiva, I agree with everything you said except perhaps adding to the ashramas. The cow section could use some rewriting for brevity. It would not even be worth mentioning except, as you noted, it is one of the things western readers expect to learn about. So we should give them some explanation, but it can be short. I think the content of the discussion on the cow that we have now is good, but it could be shorter. As for snana, you are right that it is not essential. It is like parikrama or something, and we can't mention all those things. You can remove the section on snana as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps there should be a separate article for "Hindu Rituals." HeBhagawan 00:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shaiva and HeBhagawn. I changed the title to the holy cow rather than just plain the cow. I didn't think that The cow came across very well. What do you think about this change.--Seadog 02:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind instead I am trying something new. I took out the cow compleatly. I did this due to the huge width of the TOC. I of course kept the info and the mainpage link. Does anybody object to this edit.--Seadog 02:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the cow should be in the section, but you can take it out of the TOC. We may need to trim and re-word the paragraph on the cow, but lets not delete it from the article completely. Many western readers will want to know about it. Many westerners have the misconception that cow-worship is a central doctrine in Hinduism. So it should be addressed, even if only briefly, in the main article. Then there can be a link to the other article for more information. HeBhagawan 12:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thou

HeBhagawan,

Hope you are aware that God is addressed as "Thou" and not "He" as earlier done. swadhyayee 11:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, to the extent that is true, it is only true in the second person. The article is written from a third person perspective. Scriptues are often written from a second person perspective, calling God "Thou," but this is not a scripture; it is an encyclopedia article. Thanks for commenting though. HeBhagawan 12:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar! I would also like to note that I personally find the use of the antiquated English personal pronouns Thou, Thy, Thine, etc. kind of annoying. I feel like Vivekananda and others began writing of divinity in that way to mirror Semitic Bibilical language. If we were to keep using He, with a capital H, or better yet Brahman, Parameshwara, etc it would be best. Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 13:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Shaiva, I agree with you completely. The only tricky part is when we are talking about "Brahman." In Sanskrit grammar, Brahman is neither masculine nor feminine--it is of neuter gender. As the article notes, "Brahman" (at least when spoken of as Nirguna Brahman) is a principle, not a person. So it is not really correct to say "He." That is why my original edit in the sentence Swadhyayee edited said "he (or she, or it)." Nirguna Brahman is "it." Saguna Brahman can be "he" or "she." Most of the time, of course, it is too wordy to say all three, so we have to choose one. However, when speaking specifically of Nirguna Brahman, I think we have to avoid using "he" and "she." Better to say "it" or just repeat "Brahman." HeBhagawan 13:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar. This is exactly why I feel it is better to use Brahman or Parameshwara. I don't like applying gender to the Purnam, and I dislike the use of "IT". Obviously, we aren't going to keep repeating the Proper Noun Brahman or Parameshwara, but IT seems like a derogatory pronoun to use. Perhaps we keen look the the mahavakhya Tat Tvam Asi or Om Tat Sat to help us: would the use of 'tat' or 'That' be feasible?

Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 14:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)