Jump to content

Talk:Hinduism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleHinduism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 24, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 19, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
March 29, 2006Featured article reviewKept
June 26, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
December 4, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 4, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 10, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Former featured article


Image for lead

[edit]

The articles for Christianity and Islam have images in the lead sections so can we get one here too? Moodgenerator (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please 🙏 stipp 2001:5B0:43D6:C808:1752:27EA:6CCE:C9D0 (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has an image they feel would be better, they can add it, however I was thinking about maybe adding one of the images seen below:
Moodgenerator (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deities are sect-specific, and not representative of allof Hinduism; the djivali-picture is not distinctively recognizable as a representation of Hinduism. Maybe the Aum-symbol would be good, but that's already featured in the navbox. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moodgenerator, all of these images could work, but I think images of Ganesha would be most appropriate. In addition to the image of Ganesha above here is another option. Hemmingweigh (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles of Christianity, Islam, and Sikhism uses image of their holy site as their lead section image. So, I think it would be better to use image of Holy temple or Holy site instead of using images of deities in the lead section. Note - When image of a deity (Statue of lord Shiva) was added it was removed for a reason cuz someone said "the image does not represent Hinduism as it has sects that do not believe in such idols and their worship. It only represents a section and is not representative of all followers and a general perception of the religion." AimanAbir18plus (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the holy temples or holy sites would also be sect specific.Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Radha krishnan was admired by BurtrandRusalld Russeld

[edit]

What was.the topic that attracted Burtrand Russel to Dr Radha Krishnan 2409:40E0:23:BDB6:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism also known as Hindu Dharma

[edit]

There are some articles on Wikipedia which states "Hinduism, also known as Hindu Dharma". Many sources also refer Hinduism as Hindu Dharma. So, the lede sentence should be - Hinduism (/ˈhɪnduˌɪzəm/), also known as Hindu Dharma, is an Indian religion or dharma, a religious and universal order by which its followers abide.

Thoughts? AimanAbir18plus (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, yes, quite a lot Google "Hindu dharma". Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AimanAbir18plus: the WP:LEAD summarizes the article; "Hindu dharma" is not explained in the article. It's therefor not clear how Hinduism is "also known" as "Hindu dharma." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hindu Dharma is a term for Hinduism. See the articles of other Dharmic religions like Buddhism and Jainism. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dharma is Dharma. It is not limited to any one religion or philosophical system. Dharma is the universal principle that governs ethical, moral, and cosmic order. For example, in the Bhagavad Gita, Dharma is described as the duty that arises from one’s nature and role in the cosmic scheme, beyond sectarian labels. Dharma is inherently Sanatana (without beginning and without end). Any sectarian prefix before Dharma—be it Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain—is redundant and reflects nothing more than a poor and superficial understanding, as well as intellectual dishonesty. Dharma refers to the natural law, the principle of righteousness and duty that sustains life and the universe. You cannot change natural law, even if your path to truth, harmony, and liberation is different. Dharma should not be conflated with religion. If someone uses "Hindu Dharma" in the lede, ensure that the body clarifies that "Hindu Dharma" here specifically refers to Hindu religion, which is more focused on the realization of Brahman as the preferred path. Thanks DangalOh (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am exactly talking about this. Dharma (virtue) is a key concept in Indian religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. But all of this religions also specifically known as Hindu Dharma, Buddha Dharma and Jain Dharma. So, Hindu Dharma refers to Hinduism and Dharma refers to the key concept in Indian religions. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's being used here to differentiate Hindu paths to realization from other paths. But still, I would refrain from sectarian labels. However, I agree that for most people, Dharma means religion or a religious way. So, I don't know what to do here. DangalOh (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AimanAbir18plus I see your point, and it does make sense to include it in the lead since it seems from that google books search, scholars are using it to describe Hinduism. But as Joshua has mentioned, not much explained in the article - so, might be helpful to add more details. Asteramellus (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not just "helpfull"; first in the body, then in the lead, if WP:DUE. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the term "Hindu Dharma" should be used in some parts throughout the article alongside Hinduism. Just Like "Buddha Dharma" and "Jain Dharma" has been used in the articles of Buddhism and Jainism. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you add an alinea to the Definition-section, using WP:RS, in which you explain how and where, by whom, this term is being used. After that it may be worthy of mentiining in the lead. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan I actually saw his point that both Buddhism and Jainism mention that, and it seems not much detail in the article itself for those 2. So, I suggested to add in the article. Asteramellus (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t think like that. The lead already mentions that Hinduism is a religion or "dharma." I personally don’t like the term "Hindu dharma." Just because it's used as "Buddhist dharma" and "Jain dharma" in their respective pages doesn’t mean it should be used the same way here. Buddhists and Jains need to specify it because they have limited dharmic paths. So, people need to know that, okay, this is "Buddha dharma" and this is "Jain dharma." Hinduism is all-absorbing and all-encompassing; it's "Sanatana dharma," which is also already mentioned. However, if you want to write "Hindu dharma" in the lead, make sure to follow that in the body. Thanks. DangalOh (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently has two sources with the term Hindu dharma in the title. One is Bhattacharyya, Hindu Dharma: Introduction to Scriptures and Theology. At page three he states that 'Hindu dharma' is more than 5000 years old, non-dualistic, monotheistic, one Supreme Spirit, etc. Sounds familiair, doesn't it? Neo-Vedanta, Brahmanical, etc.; this definitely needs explanation from WP:RS; as far as I can see, it's not an academic scholarly term. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree DangalOh (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

  • T. Thomas (2012), Hindu dharma in dispersion, The Growth of Religious Diversity, Vol 1, 2012:

Some 'Hindus' refer to this agglomeration of religious forms as 'Hindu dharma' (dharma here standing loosely for' religion'), but that is only to enable them to communicate to westerners some of their own religious attitudes.

  • Gavin Flood (2003), Introduction: Establishing the Boundaries. In: Flood (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, p.9:

V. D. Savarkar [...] in his highly influential book Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? (1923) distinguishes between “Hindu Dharma,” the various traditions subsumed under the term “Hinduism,” and “Hindutva” or “Hinduness,” a sociopolitical force to unite all

Hindus against “threatening Others”

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Looks like inserting 'Hindu Dharma' in the lead is not a good idea. DangalOh (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hindu Dharma is a common term for Hinduism. People particularly of South Asia always refer the term Hindu Dharma. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When they refer to the religious behaviour and attitudes; the term "Hinduism" is a common name, the term "Hindu dharma" refers specifically to the 'rules' for right living, and seems to be used by traditional Hindu-scholars. So far, you have not provided sources, not tried to add info to the article, but have only been edit-warring; your attitude is not very constructive. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reduced "also known as Hindu dharma" back to to ("Hindu dharma"), but I'be also adjusted the definition in the lead-sentence, to better reflect the importance of dharma as (emphasis mine) a "religious and universal order maintained by its followers through rituals and righteous living." It's not just following some rules; it is maintainingthe universe by following those rules. That's quite a difference. It also makes more sense of sanathana dharma and vaidika dharma. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source - Google "Hindu dharma" There are also many sources throughout the article that refers Hinduism as Hindu Dharma. Hindu Dharma can also mean Hindu religion. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent work on the "constructionism debate"

[edit]

  • Over the past few decades, many scholars have argued that it is misleading to speak of “Hinduism”—in the sense of a single, unified religious tradition—prior to the colonial period. “One of the most striking advances in modern scholarship,” writes Gauri Viswanathan, “is the view that there is no such thing as an unbroken tradition of Hinduism, only a set of discrete traditions and practices reorganized into a larger entity called ‘Hinduism.’ If there is any disagreement at all in this scholarship, it centers on whether Hinduism is exclusively a construct of western scholars studying India or of anticolonial Hindus looking toward the systematization of disparate practices as a means of recovering a precolonial, national identity.” While there are indeed many scholars who have emphasized, variously, the role of orientalist scholars, their local informants, colonial administrators, missionaries, reformers, and nationalists in the “construction” of Hinduism, there are other scholars who have argued that Hindus already shared a common religious identity prior to the colonial period. The debate has produced a steady stream of literature over the past forty years: Hinduism Reconsidered (1989, 1997), Representing Hinduism (1995), Imagining Hinduism (2003), Mapping Hinduism (2003), Defining Hinduism (2005), Imagined Hinduism (2006), Was Hinduism Invented? (2005), Unifying Hinduism (2010), and Rethinking Religion in India (2010), to mention only book-length treatments. Although the debate is often characterized as having two sides, scholars have staked out a wide range of positions, and unless we recognize the complexity of the debate, there is a danger of talking past one another. Here I will briefly sketch some of the issues at stake, before suggesting how a reading of Niścaldās might usefully advance our understanding.

    As Marianne Keppens and Esther Bloch have noted, scholarship on Hinduism as a colonial construct is anticipated by two earlier strands of scholarship. First, there is the critique of the category of “religion,” which originated within the academic discipline of religious studies. This critique has led some scholars to argue that “Hinduism” is necessarily a colonial construct, insofar as the term implies the notion of “religion” (perhaps even the notion of a “world religion”), and the very category of religion, despite its supposed universality, is a modern Western construct. The second influential strand of scholarship began with Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978), which explored the connections between knowledge and power in the works of orientalist scholars, arguing that their depictions of “the Orient” are not disinterested, objective accounts but rather politically implicated “imaginings” of orientalists themselves. This line of critique (and here I depart from Keppens and Bloch to offer my own analysis) has led to a few distinct though related arguments in the debate about the construction of Hinduism: that the “imagination” of orientalist scholars, colonial administrators, and missionaries played a significant role in the selection and organization of the data used to depict “the religion of the Hindus”; that Brahminical elites, who served as indigenous informants, sought to consolidate their power by presenting their traditions as representative of Hindus as a whole; and that Hindu reformers and nationalists took an active role in constructing versions of Hindu identity in conformity with their own ideals and political goals. In addition to the critique of “religion” as a category and the postcolonial attention to the relations of knowledge and power, I would also draw attention to a third strand in the debate, a strand which might be termed Indological. This line of inquiry, focusing on the lack of an indigenous, premodern equivalent to either the term or the concept of “Hinduism,” has led some scholars to argue that although “Vaiṣṇava,” “Śaiva,” etc. are meaningful terms, the idea of a single, unified “Hindu” tradition is a modern development.

    [...]

    From the outset, then, I should clarify that I will be focusing primarily on the third strand in the debate: how did premodern and early modern Indian intellectuals—the representatives of the scholastic traditions I have called attention to in this book—conceive of their own traditions? When, where, how, and why did the idea of a single, unified tradition first arise, and how did it develop over time? The work of scholars such as David Lorenzen (1999, 2011), Andrew Nicholson (2010), and Alexis Sanderson (2015) has demonstrated that there was indeed, at least in some textual sources, a sense of common identity across various premodern traditions that subsequently came to be labeled as “Hindu.” But much work remains to be done in tracing the origins, evolution, and shifting configurations of this common identity. This is where I believe a study of Niścaldās’s Ocean of Inquiry can provide a helpful starting point. As we shall see momentarily, Niścaldās offers a clear articulation of a unified tradition bridging scriptures, schools, and sects, and his views can be traced directly to earlier scholastic thinkers.

    [...]

    For those who have argued for the precolonial origins of a unified Hindu identity, this chapter offers a new hypothesis about the processes through which this identity emerged. Lorenzen, in his widely read essay “Who Invented Hinduism?” (1999), suggests that a “loose family resemblance” of traditions began to take “a recognizably Hindu shape in the early Puranas, roughly around the period 300–600 ce.” But he focuses primarily on the period 1200–1500, during which “a Hindu religion . . . gradually acquired a much sharper self-conscious identity through the rivalry between Muslims and Hindus in the period between 1200 and 1500.” Nicholson, in his 2010 book Unifying Hinduism, emphasizes the catalyzing role of Islam even more than Lorenzen does, arguing that the notion of a unified Hindu tradition emerged only in the twelfth to sixteenth centuries. Focusing on medieval doxographies and their reconfigurations of the categories of āstika and nāstika (lit., “affirmers” and “deniers,” or more loosely, “orthodox” and “heterodox”), Nicholson writes: “Philosophical authors writing in Sanskrit do not acknowledge Islam explicitly. But the perceived threat of Islam motivated them to create a strictly defined category of āstika philosophical systems, systems that professed belief in the Veda.” While I do not wish to discount the role that the medieval encounter with Islam might have played in consolidating a unified Hindu identity, there is strong evidence that the process of “unifying Hinduism” began well before the period to which Lorenzen and Nicholson draw our attention. Sanderson has argued that such an identity, while by no means universally accepted, seems already to have been widespread by the tenth century. In this chapter I will provide additional evidence in support of Sanderson’s position, and I will further argue that the process of Hindu identity formation can be understood at least in part as a process of canon formation, motivated by a characteristically scholastic project of harmonizing authorities, resolving doubts, and clarifying the boundaries of orthodoxy.
    — Michael S. Allen. 2022. Conclusion: The Premodern Origins of Modern Hinduism in The Ocean of Inquiry: Niscaldas and the Premodern Origins of Modern Hinduism. Oxford University Press.

    @Joshua Jonathan: might be of interest to you. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 01:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TryKid: it certainly. As an aside: Allen published on The Ocean before, didn't he? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2024

[edit]

The religion should not be called a "Indian religion" as it promotes a false view of the religion belonging to India, when Hinduism is very much alive outside of India and even south asia followed natively by people in those countries. The concept of "India" is anachronistic to apply to the origin place of Hindu religion (or vedic religion) as modern India has only existed since 1947. If Hindu religion is Indian religion then islam is a Arab religion (Wikipedia only says there are 1.9 billion Muslims worldwide). Why can't it just mention the same thing for Hinduism? That there are this many Hindus worldwide and it's a collection of different traditions and philosophies traditionally based on the Vedas?

[1] [2] [3] 113.199.225.202 (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The using term 'Indian' refers to religion being originating from Indian subcontinent and has nothing to do with followers abroad. Edasf (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

[edit]

X: The two major Hindu denominations are the Vaishnavism and Shaivism, with other demonions include the Shaktism and Smarta tradition.

Y: The two major Hindu denominations are the Vaishnavism and Shaivism, with other denominations including the Shaktism and Smarta tradition. 84.52.142.35 (talk) 08:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Nepal
  2. ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/India
  3. ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism&oldid=1255511089"