Talk:Hinduism

Opening line

It is written in opening line that "Hinduism has been called the oldest Religion" I want to replace phrase "has been called" with "is". If someone disagree please tell me reason. Anmolbhat (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Not by everyone. The 'has been called' implies some uncertainty, or that this is a view of some/many but is not universal. That phrasing is more NPOV than using "is". Read the archive of this talk page, particularly about whether Hinduism is a modern construct/invention just like other religions. I suggest you leave it alone. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what Ms Sarah Welch is saying.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Me too. The religion of the Aboriginals in Ausralia is arguably thousands of years older. Actually, I think that that line, and the accompanyingnote, should be removed, since it is a leftover of pov-pushing. But as it is now, it is acceptable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

We should remove it. We could get complaints from the Animists out there! --regentspark (comment) 21:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I just don't understand how the current phrasing is relevant, seeing as it's incorrect and isn't even coherent with other pages on this website. According to Wikipedia's History of Hinduism, it appeared in 1900 BCE. By then, the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt had come and gone, and it established divine kingship and extensive mythology. The Great Pyramid of Giza (completed 2560 BCE) is quite a bit older than the earliest Vedic text (c. 1700–1100 BCE). Ancient Mesopotamia (and its equally well developed beliefs) had also been around for over 1000 years. And that's just counting complex, organized religions practiced by "refined" civilizations. The Lion-man, carved out of a mammoth tusk, is an indication of a religion dating back 35 to 40 thousand years ago. The sentence should be changed to "oldest still practiced religion", or something to that effect. In fact, that's what the Religion page's section on Indian religions does, and also what 2 of the 5 authors quoted in the note specify. Kloick (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

One could argue that it is the oldest religion still in practice in the world even if the sources in the footnotes, from academia, insist on it being the "oldest religion".
As far as aboriginal beliefs and animistic traditions are concerned, one should distinguish cultural traditions passed on over centuries since an impossible to determine date and a religion like Hinduism with its set of texts, practices and philosophical works that have carved a whole civilisation over millennia.
Saying that the beliefs of the aboriginals of Australia predate Hinduism is unfair as these beliefs can't be dated because of a lack of textual proofs while Hindu beliefs having been put down on paper by the 2nd millenium BC can be dated at this date even if the beliefs predate the writings. Manish2542 (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Academics have also said that "Hinduism," the conception of the variety of those Indian religions constituting one religion, arose only in the 19th century. And the texts you're referring to come from the Vedic religion, have been reinterpreted by later Indian traditions, and even more or less rejected by some Indian traditions, like certain strands of Shaivism. And some argue that Hinduism contains elements of the IVC-religion(s), which predate the Vedic texts ("cultural traditions passed on over centuries"). So, many arguments; the statement "has been called" does justice to the sources pro-oldest, sources which contradict this, and to a widespread and important conception by Hindus, who perceive their religion as being very ancient. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The oldest Vedic writings date to around 800BCE a far cry from the 2nd millennium BCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:F40F:200:259C:3DC9:E57D:A556 (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070317151629/http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/egyptmyth/g/henotheism.htm to http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/egyptmyth/g/henotheism.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/_includes/FCKcontent/file/Vivekananda.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2017

Please change the following:

The Sanskrit word dharma has a much deeper meaning than religion and is not its equivalent.

to

The Sanskrit word dharma has a much broader meaning than religion and is not its equivalent.

While it's definitely true that dharma and religion are by no means equivalent, I feel this wording does not do it justice. To call dharma 'deeper' than religion is a highly subjective claim. 'Deeper' seems to imply that it denotes a more significantly spiritual experience. I don't think that's the kind of subjective value judgement Wikipedia needs. 'Broader' is a less loaded and better fitting in the context of the article. Fulaxi (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2018

Hello and good what every time of day it is to you. My name Is Ganesha'sPupil. I am in deep fond of Hinduism, for that is the religion that I followed and trough up by my parents since i was a child. I follow the ways of all 4 of the Vedas consisting of Rik, Samar, Raju, Atharava Vedas and the Bhagavad-Gita. I really want to educate the other culture of my religo. What I think that this article is missing is the reason behind Hinduism and why it is true and the true stories and of the Solar system such as , Sani, Guru,Suriya,Ragu,Khetu,etc. I hope to be very useful and I sincerer hop my request can be accepted. I hope to be a valid member to the Wikipedia team. Thank you for your time. Ganesha'sPupil (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead change

Link to the edit

@Kautilya3: The Upanishads are a layer of the Vedas, which are mentioned. If you really want to mention the Upanishads, then you should mention all the other layers of the Vedas.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. But, whatever it is, you need to be careful when you change the longstanding lead and be completely transparent. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You don't agree the Upanishads are a layer of the Vedas?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

No. And, you are edit warring again. You never change. I am outa here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and VictoriaGrayson: there is more than just Upanishad in these recent edits. "Tantra introduced icons, puja and temple building into Hinduism", is too subjective to be included on lead, I support removal. — MapSGV (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, VG is misrepresenting and POV pushing, as usual. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Padoux says "The Hindu worship, the pūjā, for instance, is Tantric in its conception and ritual process, the principles of Hindu temple building and iconography are Tantric, and so on.".VictoriaGrayson (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't seem enough to draw such conclusion. MapSGV (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you want me to paraphrase closer to Padoux?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if you paraphrased it is still subjective to keep on lead. MapSGV (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

See WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Describe this edit summary. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I am talking about @Ms Sarah Welch: who was indef blocked.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I am watching this article much before that editor got active here and I never saw this sentence ever before. MapSGV inserted nothing only removed and you called his edit "originally by indef blocked editor". Do you have any other explanation? D4iNa4 (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

MapSGV reverted to the lead created by MSW, who is an indef blocked editor.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The lead is mostly stale and similar to the versions before Ms Sarah Welch' s first edit to the article. Sarah Welch may have attempted to WP:OWN this article but it is still a work of different editors. I also think that lead is better without this sentence per WP:UNDUE. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE requires sources which dispute Padoux, which noone has yet provided.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I will, but issue is with WP:LEAD. How important this sentence is to include in lead? D4iNa4 (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Its important. Even a temple pujari will tell you his pujas are from the agama.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand Vic's point, but it may be helpfull to start with adding this info to the main body of the article, and then to the lead. It may also good to take a look at the source. Vic added the following:

Tantra introduced icons, puja and temple building into Hinduism.

References

Padoux p.2 does not explicitly say that puja, icons and temples originated with Tantra; it says that Tantra "permeated the whole Hindu world". And this is what Puja (Hinduism) says about the origins of puja:

According to scholars,[15] one of the earliest mentions of pūjā is in the Grihya Sutras, which provide rules for domestic rites. These Sutras, dated to be about 500 BC, use the term puja to describe the hospitality to honor priests who were invited to one’s home to lead rituals for departed ancestors. As with vedic times, the general concept of puja remained the same, but expanded to welcoming the deity along with the deity's spiritual essence as one's honored guest.[15] The Puranic corpus of literature, dating from about 6th century CE, contain extensive outline on how to perform deity puja (deva pūjā). Deity puja thus melds Vedic rites with devotion to deity in its ritual form. As with many others aspects of Hinduism, both Vedic puja and devotional deity puja continued, the choice left to the Hindu.

Not exactly the same, is it? Furthermore, Lopez, Asian Religions in Practice: An Introduction, p.32, also the origins of puja further back in time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You are quoting Wikipedia? Thats meaningless. Quoting an actual book would be useful.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The information is too subjective and your source was clearly not enough for drawing such a large conclusion. Whatever above user said is not a hoax, we will need to discuss this in lengths but still it's too much for lead. — MapSGV (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)