Talk:Hinduism and other religions/Archive 1

Seed page

I think this page should read like a seed page with a quick synopsis and links to other various pages which detail the events more elaborately. Currently there is another page History of Hinduism that is also struggling for direction and replicates the purpose of this page, should they be merged?

I started straightening out and rearranging the format of sections but then I gave when I ran into rather strange sections having no idea what to do with them. I have tagged thos sections appropriately. --Tigeroo 07:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a really valuable page, because Hinduism is a fascinating religion, and it has had so much influence on Indian culture YOU ARE A GAY MAN FAG!!! among other sources, so its not really a useful comparison.

I added a few missing blank spaces.--Patillotes 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is looking really rough. A lot of the Judaism section is about Christianity or both ambiguously, and the Christianity part reads like it was translated and pasted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.255.13 (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relations to judaism

The first paragraph of the "relations to judaism" section needs to be removed entirely. I am a student of religious history and there is no eveidence that any of the claims made therein are true. I would love to provide a source to prove this but the fact is that since this is almost a complete fabrication by the author there is very little reliable material on the topic. There have been claims, however, by biased authors both Hindu and Judeo-Christian in perspective that attempt to trace the origin of the other religion to their own. However, these are, as stated previously, very biased and based on sketchy evidence and should be disscused in another article, perhaps liked to this, or not at all.Pzureick (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hinduism and Islam

Oppose merger, this article is for Hinduism's relationship with all other religions, not just Islam.--Editor2020 (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Spirit and kundalini

I have read some people had made links between the two notions/beliefs. The article should maybe look into that. ADM (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah i agree  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.35.219.120 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made minor grammatical correction

I changed "few Jews who came to India had a history of comfortable life" to "the few Jews who came to India had a history of comfortable life", which I believe was intended, judging from the preceding sentences. As a matter of grammar, without "the", the statement would have the opposite meaning, i.e. "most Jews... did not have a comfortable life".--206.130.174.44 (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackguard SF's edit

I would like Blackguard SF to cite the reason that why he reverted the 10,000 bytes text without citing any legible reason, considering that the main articles of the pages, of each index have been written the same way. Justicejayant (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the editor in question, but your edit was a mess of WP:SYNTH, poor wording, unsourced and irrelevant claims (wealth of Hindus, influence of Hinduism on other religions etc etc). If you want to add such a large amount of controversial material to an article you better propose such an edit on the talk page first. Also, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saddhiyama How it is irrelevant or controversial when it's sourced with the reliable sourced? In the page such as Christianity and other religions it's ok to add such information, but why not here? Justicejayant (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the edit history. I didn't knew about that you have made 3 edits before you cleaned up the whole. Well i agree about the removal of the texts that you have removed in "relevance" section. That's all. But you can re-insert the rest, which is apart from the 3 edits, that you made manually(selection) with edit summary. Justicejayant (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)

Again see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Your edit is so massive that it is a daunting task to go through the problems one by one. However I can point out a few examples that are representative of the entire edit:

You keep repeating (unsourced of course) that Hinduism has had an "influence on other religions", that may be true, but very few of the examples you provide actually supports that claim, for example "Druze share the belief in reincarnation, although the religion is strictly Monotheistic". This is unsourced WP:SYNTH. Reincarnation is not an idea exclusive to Hinduism, so that is not evidence of influence, especially not since you do not cite any sources from scholars claiming such a connection, this applies again in your claim "24% of Americans believe in reincarnation, a very important concept of Hinduism like mentioned previously".

In the section "Conclusion" (a title which supports Blackguard SFs claim that your edit reads like an essay) you again write that the influence of Hinduism on other religions is obvious (after superflously inserting the statement that Hinduism is the oldest religion, a statement which seems unconnected to anything following that) but the very first quotation by Zaehner actually concludes that Hinduism didn't influence the monotheistic religions ("...if only" he says), and the rest of the examples in that section are only about how some writers see a connection in modern science to some of the ideas expressed by Hinduism (you interpreting this with generalised claims about Hinduisms "relation to science", when that is not what the citations support).

That Hindus has the highest level of income in the US does not necessarily have any connection to the religion, and the source doesn't make any such claim either, and even if it did, it seems completely out of place with regard to the scope of this article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at your edit history. I would like you to acknowledge these few points:-

Your edits[1], [2], [3].
Indeed those points have to do nothing with the religion but only with people.
You can have a look at the talk page of "Beeblebrox", i just mentioned that i saw no notification that you have already asserted at talk page.
Similar to this article Hinduism in Israel the Druze thing is mentioned, here's the source[4]. Also this source[5], it completely proves the point.
Other 2 quotes, especially the one by Carl Sagan talks about the relation of science with hinduism, which is visible in the quote, originally by him.

Thanks, i hope the misunderstandings are cleared. Justicejayant (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention anything about the Druze, and I haven't seen anything in your edit about them either, however considering the massive size of your edit you may have, I don't see the relevance to my stated objections above, though, since I did not mention the Druze. Your reply to my objection about the Hinduism and science connection does notadress my objections, namely that you present two quotes as being many scientists have related Hinduism and science, since they are only two specific examples about two specific phenomena, not general theories of science in connection with Hinduism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see anything wrong with this version[6]... Do you? Let me know. Justicejayant (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, those were just examples, and that version only has fixed a fraction of the problems with the edit. Besides there are numerous other problems I haven't mentioned yet. What is "Laidlaw, pp. 154–160; Jindal, pp. 74–90; Tähtinen p. 110" referring to? It seems that the citations are taken out of context from somewhere else, hopefully this isn't a copyright issue. Referring to Volney wrote over 200-years ago, not exactly representative of contemporary scholarship on connections between Hinduism and Judaism, at best his opinions, worded expressively as his opinions, belong in an historiography section. The essay by "S. Korn" is not sufficient to support such an exceptional claim as that "either the aboriginal Brahmins were Jews or the primitive Jews were Brahmins". The section beginning thus: "According to Kushwant Singh...", seems to be a quotation, it has a quotation mark at the beginning of it, but nothing at the end, which is really problematic as the section is definitely POV-worded with lots of religious hyperbole ("martyrdom ", "supreme sacrifice" etc) which is not acceptable, and even if it is one long quotation it is too long. In the Zoroastrianism section there is a citation just reading "Boyce (1979), p. 26", which again suggests some copyright problems going on here (copy pasting from other sources). And again in the following citation which even has a bot notice saying it is a dead link. You are aware that bulk copypasting even older versions of Wikipedia articles with no attribution are prohibited on copyright grounds? Not to mention the problem of reverting to older versions or copying from other older versions of other articles without mentioning that that is what you are doing suggests some bad faith on your part.

In short, there are so many problems with the edit, not least the fundamental copyright and bad faith editing that Blackguard SF was surely correct in rejecting it outright. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saddhiyama, maybe you are in hurry. What about Buddhism, Atheism, Agnosticism and others? And the rest of "Relevance" which was left after this edit[7]. None of the edits are taking from "older versions of wikipedia articles", but the current ones. As mentioned at the page of Mary Boyce, the source "Boyce(1979)" is not a copy paste, but it's taken as the clue from the book "Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices". The Kushwant Singh's quote starts ends at "Tegh Bahadur, Hind Di Chadar" if you clearly watch, i agree that it should be clearer though, and the quote should be lowered.

"http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/zoroastrianism-i-historical-review" is not a dead link, but it's actually working, so bot has forgotten to replace. How can we deny the statement of Volney? When it's backed by the multiple sources states the same?[8]. As for this "Laidlaw, pp. 154–160; Jindal, pp. 74–90; Tähtinen p. 110"... this is the actual source:-

"Dundas, Paul: The Jains, second edition, London 2002, p. 160; Wiley, Kristi L.: Ahimsa and Compassion in Jainism, in: Studies in Jaina History and Culture, ed. Peter Flügel, London 2006, p. 438; Laidlaw pp. 153–154." S. Korn's statement isn't unreliable either, if you think it's exceptional claim, then it can be backed by more sources.[9],

In short words, these all information are simply legit, as per the wikipedia guidelines, and used in different pages already, not that they are from "older versions". Justicejayant (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I had no way of identifying where you copypasted it from, I assumed older versions, that it is indeed from existing versions doesn't make it any better, quite the contrary, it is still copyright infringement (please read this link). And combined with the multiple problems in your massive edit which I have pointed out, and which you have not adressed in anyway except repeating that "it's legit edits", I fear that we are a very long way from constructing anything meaningful out of this mess. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saddhiyama, where it is saying that you can't copy from one page to another one? And i have hardly copied + pasted, as at least 70% of the content is of my own words, sourced too. Hardly 2-3 lines are not even the matter, because it talks about making duplicate articles. Plus, i have already notified you, that none of the edits that have been made in this page are fringed. So i think it's easier to say, that if you revert it back to the 2nd last version, i will edit it as per this discussion. Justicejayant (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, have a look here User:Justicejayant/sandbox. And let me know, you can make changes there. Justicejayant (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undue

The fabrication of Christ going to India is so FRINGE that it should not be discussed here at all. We only talk about FRINGE theories in the article about the FRINGE theory. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even BBC had a documentary about it, doubt if it's Fringe. Justicejayant (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed those parts from the Article anyway, just a link "Jesus in India" should remain which redirects to Unknown years of Jesus. Justicejayant (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the BBC has had documentaries on astrology and psychics. That doesnt make them any less FRINGE, it just makes them good titillating TV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to dreadful version

The latest revert made by User:Saddhiyama seems to be enforcement/promotion of "FRINGE theories" like explained in above sections, and removal of sourced content. And i have read the whole talk page, the user doesn't seem to be explaining, that what is wrong with the selected version. I see no problem in reverting back, if User:Saddhiyama won't explain. And In Fact there's no need of any "maintenance tag" if we already have a version, having zero issues. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can both agree that the current version is deplorable (hence the need for the multiple maintenance tags), but as the saying goes: Two wrongs doesn't make a right. It is a bit concerning that the only thing you have gotten out of the discussion above is that I "unplacable WP:FRINGE objections" considering my attempts at detailed responses above, and since I list other policy problems as well, not least regarding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. So, working from this version of Justicejayants edits:

The sources and their use are the main problem. Firstly there is still the problem of unattributed copypasting from other places (breach of copyright, which I also highlighted in the abortive DR/N-thread) for example "S. Korn", ""Galilee: The Christian, the Druze, the Jew and the Muslim", p. 20" and " (Gombrich 1997, pp. 29–30)". Sources that cannot be readily identified since they have been copypasted out of their original context.

Then we have a a lot of WP:OR based on making interpretations on account of the conclusions of one or more differing sources, as example in the "Buddhism and Hinduism" section:

"For example, in the [[Samanna-phala Sutta]], the Buddha is depicted presenting a notion of the 'three knowledges' (''tevijja'') – a term also used in the Vedic tradition to describe knowledge of the [[Veda]]s – as being not texts, but things that he had experienced (these are not noble truths).<ref>{{Harv|Gombrich|1997|pp=29–30}}</ref> The true 'three knowledges' are said to be constituted by the process of achieving enlightenment, which is what the Buddha is said to have achieved in the three watches of the night of his enlightenment.<ref>"The brahmin by caste alone, the teacher of the ''Veda'', is (jokingly) etymologized as the 'non-meditator' (''ajhāyaka''). Brahmins who memorize the three ''Vedas'' (''tevijja'') really know nothing: it is the process of achieving Enlightenment—what the Buddha is said to have achieved in the three watches of that night—that constitutes the true 'three knowledges.'" R.F. Gombrich in Paul Williams, ed., "Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies." Taylor and Francis 2006, page 120.</ref>"

In the "Hinduism and Sikhism" section:

Sikhism includes familiar and common beliefs as in Hindu concepts like [[Karma]], [[Dharma]], [[Reincarnation]], meditating on God's name, [[cremation]] and other beliefs.<ref>Adi Granth [http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=1136&english=t&id=48600#l48600 Page 1136]</ref>

A primary source. So it is the editors own intepretation that they are similar.

In the "Judaism" section:

[[Druze]] share the belief in [[reincarnation]], although the religion is strictly [[Monotheism|Monotheistic]].<ref>[http://www.druze.org.au/religion/ Druze faith]</ref><ref>"Galilee: The Christian, the Druze, the Jew and the Muslim", p. 20</ref>

In the "Zoroastrianism" section:

[[Zoroaster]] the founder of [[Zoroastrianism]], was born into culture with a [[polytheism|polytheistic]] religion, which included [[animal sacrifice]] and the ritual use of intoxicants. This religion was quite similar to the early forms of [[Hinduism]] in India.<ref>By [[Mary Boyce]], "Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices" p. 26</ref>

Mary Boyce writes (p. 3): "Fortunately much can be discovered through a comparison of the most ancient elements in the Zoroastrian scriptures and cult with the oldest religious works of India (notably the Rigveda) and the Brahmanic rituals." Nothing about "this religion was quite similar to the early forms of Hinduism".

Number of Zoroastrian scholars asserts that since Zoroaster's divinity covers both being and mind as immanent entities, it is better described as a belief in an immanent self-creating universe with consciousness as its special attribute, thereby putting Zoroastranism in the [[Pantheism|pantheistic]] fold where it can be easily traced to its shared origin with Indian [[Brahmanism]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Zoroastrianism: Holy text, beliefs and practices|date=2010-03-01|accessdate=2010-03-01|url=http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/zoroastrianism-i-historical-review}}</ref>

Nothing is written in the cited sourced about "thereby putting Zoroastranism in the pantheistic fold where it can be easily traced to its shared origin with Indian Brahmanism". The only mention of Brahmanism in that source is when it is mentioned as being a heresy rooted out and attacked.

From the "Agnosticism" section:

[[Agnosticism]] is not opposed by Hinduism, throughout the history of [[Hinduism]] there has been a strong tradition of philosophic speculation and skepticism.<ref>{{cite book| title=World scriptures: an introduction to comparative religions| first=Kramer| last=Kenneth| isbn=978-0-8091-2781-8|year=1986|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RzUAu-43W5oC&pg=PA34 |page=34}}

This is just a link to scripture, a primary source. It does not support the general claim that "throughout the history of Hinduism there has been a strong tradition of philosophic speculation and skepticism".

Same goes for the following paragraph. Again the editors own interpretation of agnosticism from a primary source:

The [[Rig Veda]] takes an agnostic view on the fundamental question of how the universe and the gods were created. Nasadiya Sukta (''Creation Hymn'') in the tenth chapter of the Rig Veda says: + {{quote|Who really knows? <br/>Who will here proclaim it? <br/>Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation? <br/>The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. <br/>Who then knows whence it has arisen?}}

And then there are some sources of dubious nature for various reasons (not an exhaustive list, since as usual Justicejayants edits are enormous):

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2004-05-22/edit-page/28331091_1_god-acceptance-shankara - An opinion piece with no author.
The Menorah Journal - Volume 19 - 1930. Hardly an example of contemporary scholarly thought on the subject.

Hopefully you will be able to extract a bit more than "seems to be enforcement/promotion of "FRINGE theories" from this reply than from my previous ones and see that it would indeed be problematic to exchange the current version of the article with Justicejayants version, since it would essentially just be replacing one bad version with another.--Saddhiyama (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saddhiyama, good you noted them down.

Buddhism and Hinduism version can be changed. I agree with this one.

Zoroastrainism.. Here you have asserted your own opinion, First of all, you haven't read the whole "Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices", page 1-16, and 21-26 are explanatory. You just have to read this:-

http://books.google.com/books?id=imSOAcFw8okC&pg=PA97 , [10] p.6-8, [11], [12] "The Zend-Avesta, with some exceptions, contains nothing essentially different from what the Vedas contain. The gods, the rites, the ceremonies, the modes of prayers, and the prayers themselves, are but a reflex of the Vedas. Surely then when Zoroaster dissented from the Brahmans, it could not be merely to adopt the same pantheism or polytheism in a different language....."

Sikhism and Hinduism.. Well, not only this source, but there are numerous sources, that would back it up,[13], [14], the official literature of both religions as well, confirms it.

Judaism, "Menorah journal" or "S.Korn" are indeed copyright. I agree with removal of them.

Agnosticism. [15], p. 670 - 672 will help.

Main point is, that it can be added, but you must contribute. Justicejayant (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

overall structure and style issues

Upon review, this article should merely be section headings with links to the main articles about the individual relations, with the lead section of those main articles being transcluded here. (see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE I have begun the transcluding, however, none of the content of the lead of the Hindu-Islamic relations article has specific sources and so those will need to be added back in. for some reason there is no Hinduism and Christianity main article - so that gives us a chance to start fresh and start right. (ie no "Jesus in India" crap) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable solution. Only problem is that some of those main articles are as bad as this one when it comes to WP:OR based on primary sources (i.e. religious scripture). Especially Hinduism and Sikhism and Ayyavazhi and Hinduism are major transgressors when it comes to this. However that is another discussion to be taken up on the talk pages of those respective articles for anyone interested. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the referred articles will generally need to be a clean up target as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]