Talk:Hindus

The notions of casteism and untouchability are creations of zealots who envisaged that these ideas will help them pursue their materialistic goals using Hindu religion as a tool. Hinduism never promoted casteism. It is quite ironical that the person who disputed the neutrality of the article himself presents an anti-Hindu propaganda. I strongly recommend that the person who commented on this article should do his homework before attacking any religion.

How anybody is Hindu? Who is Hindu? The person who believes Jesus Christ and Bible is a Christen, Who believes Allah as God is a Muslim. Who is Hindu? " Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse; and the realization of the truth that the number of gods to be worshiped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of the Hindu religion. " Sikh, Jain and Buddhist are separate Religious Philosopies.

The thoughts as bellow are with ignorance,
Even if we accept that a Hindu Community exists those who are controlled by caste Brahmins and follow traditions defined by Caste Brahmins are Hindus. The so called Hindus should not hide the real truths of there culture. Nepal which is officially declared Hindu State where more than 22% are untouchables even in 21st century. There are social problems in all faiths.
Early Hindu(ism)
Three basic principles rule the orthodox schools of Hinduism: 1. Belief in an eternal, infinite, all-embracing neuter principle of ultimate reality called Brahman. The pervasive force lying within all beings, Brahman is conceived as the "self," or atman, of all forms of life. 2. Supremacy of the sacred texts like the Vedas (probably composed about 1500-1200 BC)and Upanishads (c. 400 BC). 3. Supremacy of the Brahman (priestly) class as the highest representative of religious purity and knowledge, and many support the notion that social and religious duties are differently determined according to birth and inherent ability. Various schools of Hinduism were developing during the time of the Buddha, like Mimamsa, Vedanta and Samkhya (see below).

Sikh, Jain and Buddhists are "NOT Hindus". If you go and ask any Hindu a simple question Who is Hindu? He may not answer you correctly. Such things can be answered as above.

Jain Mahavira (Great Hero) lived around 570-490 BC and was a contemporary of the Buddha. He is considered the main prophet (Tirthankara) who founded Jainism in this era. Similar to Buddhism, Jainism teaches that their principles have been taught in the past by enlightened teachers, and will be taught again in the future.

Reader can decide which one is first..

The Hindus have a Caste system. Kshatriya, Brahmin and Sudra.
--Sree

I suggest that someone who is knowledgeable about the subject decide whether to put back the redirect or make this a disambiguation page. I don't understand what 2.83.52.23 wrote and I don't know much about Hindu or Hinduism. Kjkolb 10:51, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Whoever has written "Indo-Aryans (light-skinned northerners), Dravidians (dark-skinned southerners)" obviously hasn't seen Indians. The light skin of some of the Southern Brahmins has been attributed to their northern origins(poor dark skinned southern brahmins and dark skinned northerners! I pity them.). But there are so many non-brahmins castes in South that show lighter complexion. However, colour scheme might be very complicated. In a family itself you can see both dark skinned and light skinned children. Well, you can attribute that to north Indian origin of those castes. However, if that's the case you have to declare every South Indian a north Indian since north-west India was the only way through which anyone could enter South India. I suppose we South Indians don't have to be loyal to either to light skin or to dark skin, so we don't accept any such branding from mischievous people. If you want to have an objective analysis origins of Indians, please read Dravidian race. --Manjunatha (22 Aug 2005 21:21 IST)

I feel little knowledge is always dangerous. The person who knows well about the subject should comment and give his suggestion. It will be better for him as well as for society if he can suggest to remove evil practices rather then blaming someone. Each society's beliefs & practices may look weird by other but nobody has a right to blame it.

General words and no signature. I don't know what to say. Okay, I agree! --Manjunatha (21 Sep 2005)

What are the disputed points? May be we can remove it or modify it.

Well someone who was seriously agitated by reading caste discrimination news in newspapers, finally tried to strike his POV over this section. I don't think there is anything wrong with the article, if someone feels that the definition of a hindu cannot be so broad OR he does not comes in hinduism under this definition may go to orkut.com and fight. This is an encyclopedia not playground for some n-psycho-pedos. If you are angry why we worship Shiva's phallus then we can't help it, because that's what we do, and wikipedia should be writing about it.--Renegade division 14:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:172.203.204.9 removed a paragraph about sikhs/ jains w/the comment:"False comments. Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains are NOT Hindus." This may be open to debate, and the relationship between Hindu, Sikh and Jain should probably at least be discussed in this article.

But an adherent of the Sikh or Jain or Buddhist faith may also be recognized and identified as a Hindu, as all three religious systems are inalienably linked with Hinduism, as well as Hindu history and culture. Jainism and Buddhism and Sikhism, in that order, were originally unbound reform movements in India, growing from but essentially a part of mainstream society that has been identified as Hindu. --Alcidebava 19:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Hindus in Bali eat beef? --Dangerous-Boy

I have deleted the following para since it sounds really arrogant and an insult to vast majority of Hindus. Since present day Indian government or any religious organization doesn't classify anybody as non-Hindus because they don't follow any or all of the pre-requisites mentioned below, it's irrelevent. Well, to keep the things simple, in the past, education be it any form( religious or otherwise) was forbidden for majority of people who are identified as Hindus presently. So there was absolutely no chance that except Brahmins anyone else would have learnt Vedas. People who blatantly add such comments(out of ignorance or arrogance) in the article must show some discretion.

Another definition of who a Hindu (or follower of Sanatana Dharma) is, states that a Hindu is one who

1. Accepts the authority of the Vedas.
2. Practices vegetarianism and meditation.
3. Believes in the concepts of karma and reincarnation or rebirth.

Source: http://www.dharmacentral.com/faq.htm

The way this article has expanded in the last few days, I think we are gonna have two articles on the same topic. Most of the stuff in this article is already mentioned in the Hinduism article! Refer to the articles on Christian and Muslim and see the difference between them and Christianity and Islam respectively. --Deepak|वार्ता 23:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend to my fellow Wikipeople the following:

(1) PLEASE DO NOT DELETE ANY INFORMATION WITHOUT A DECENT INTERVAL OF DISCUSSION. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A PARTICULAR PASSAGE, DISCUSS IT FIRST!

A lot of people put in good time and work into this, only to find it scrapped out in 30 seconds by somebody else. This is purely INSULTING!

IF there are mistakes, problems, etc...THEY NEED TO BE DISCUSSED!

(3) THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE ADHERENTS OF HINDUISM, NOTHING ELSE.

The all Indians are Hindus line need not be discussed at all. It is more political and purely damaging to this article's integrity.

(3) NEED TO FIND SOMEWAY TO INTEGRATE WITHIN THIS ARTICLE INFO ABOUT THE HINDU PEOPLES OF INDIA, WITH THE HINDU PEOPLES OF BALI, ETC.

Hinduism is beyond just India.

- Har Har Mahadev! Nirav Maurya

Let me personally remind anybody that if you whack off portions of this article without discussion, you kill Wikipedia's integrity and nothing else - Har Har Mahadev! Nirav Maurya

I dont have any problem with the content of what you wrote. But we do have an article called Hinduism. Whatever I deleted was already mentioned in the Hinduism article. Im sorry, but Ill have to revert yr edits. Go ahead and add the same info to the Hinduism article but all this does not belong to the Hindu article. --Deepak|वार्ता 17:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deepak,

You don't get my point: The section "Religion for the Common Hindu" is CRITICAL to the Hindu article, because it should talk about what faith and religion mean to the common Hindu.

This section needs more and proper input: which is why I put the notice that this needs more contributions.

If by any chance this is covered in the Hinduism article, then it should be scrapped off there, because that should simply be about religion, not its followers, especially if you have a special section for them.

The core point is we WikiHindus have done a bad job for ourselve. Hinduism has the poorest coverage in this encyclopedia.

Ok, I get yr point. I agree with you that all of the Hinduism-related articles are in a very poor shape. Previously I wan involved in Indian Military- and Kashmir- related articles and later on realised the terrible state of Hinduism-related articles. Ive made some changes and added new pics to the Hinduism article. I think its time to clean up the Hindu article too. Also I would appreciate if you could create an account at Wikipedia. Cheers --Deepak|वार्ता 23:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please hurry up this pending merger? There is no point in procrastinating, since this "Hindu" article is far bigger than the Hindu people one. - Nirav.

I suck at merging. --Dangerous-Boy 22:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Over 500 million Hindus are known to be well-versed with that language [= English]."
How well do they know English? Knowing enough of a language for simple market trading or asking the way to somewhere, is not the same as knowing enough of that language to understand speeches about general matters. When I was in Holland I found that plenty of the Dutch there knew enough English to handle their jobs, but not enough for general matters. This I discovered on my first day there, when I asked a customs officer about something that was not part of his job, namely where I could buy petrol for my motorcycle. Anthony Appleyard 17:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, Dutch people are horrible in English. Me and my parents had a lot of problem communicating with them when we initially settled in Holland. I'd say it depends, people in Amsterdam know their English well. Can't say the same for people living in Haarlem (my home city). English is an official language in India and many schools in rural and urban areas have English as an compulsory subject. As a consequence, quite a few Indians (85% of whom are Hindus) have studied English. The answer to the question of how well-versed in English they are, depends upon how well educated they are. --Deepak|वार्ता 03:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Before I went to Holland, I learned Dutch from a textbook. Anthony Appleyard 22:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting. Unfortunately, learning Dutch wasn't so easy for me. --Deepak|वार्ता 22:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The term Hindu may also simply identify an inhabitant of the India, regardless of religious orientation." - No ! it may not ! Indians can and should only be known as Indians. There is no reason to associate religion with nationalism. Historically Indians might have been known as Hindus but I don't think it would be very appropriate now. Therefore i suggest this line be altered.

"Another popular name for India is Hindustan, or Land of the Hindus." - Another line i am not comfortable with. I seriously don't think Hindustan means Land of the Hindus and having read about it before, its a common misconception. I'm not very clear but as far as i can recall Hindustan came from Hind, the area where India is, as it was known in ancient times. Then stan is a commonly used persian practice which means place or land. HIndustan is a combination of the two. And this is not something i am making up. I would really suggest that these two line be modified, changed or removed. I don't think their deletion will have any great significance on the rest of the article.