Talk:Hinduism

Definition of word Hindu

If we search for word Hindu, it is mentioned that quote The Brihaspati Agama (dated?)says:

हिमालयं समारभ्य यावदिंदुसरोवरम् । तं देवनिर्मितं देशं हिंदुस्थानं प्रचक्ष्यते ।। "The land created by the gods which stretched from the Himalayas to the Indu (i.e. Southern) ocean is called Hindusthan, with the हिंदु (Hindu) mentioned in word हिंदुस्थानं (Hindusthan)."[4][5]

The usage of the word Hindu was popularized for Arabs and further west by the Arabic term al-Hind referring to the land of the people who live across river Indus[6] and the Persian term Hindū referring to all Indians. By the 13th century, Hindustān emerged as a popular alternative name of India, meaning the "land of Hindus".[7] unquote

However if we search for work 'Hinduism', the definition is different - as derived from word 'Sindu'.

Since the we have the reference of the Sanskrit Sloka from a very old literature "Brihaspathi Samhitha", we should go by that definition only. There is no proof for saying the word Hindu is derived from word 'Sindhu', as mentioned in http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/ataglance/glance.shtml - There is no reference mentioned over there.

Request Wiki to correct the information mentioned for 'Hinduism'. I could not edit as the page is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinuvvv (talk • contribs) 07:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:PRIMARY and WP:No original research. On Wikipedia, religious scriptures are treated as literary works, not cosmic truths. The BBC site is the reference, and meets our reliable sourcing guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the above source [Bŗhaspati Āgama] is spurious. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Unwanted Images & Lines

The article is flooded with some unwanted images which are out of context.It Would look good if they are removed.Some lines have been removed which do not have a valid supporting authoritative source from Vedic Scriptures e.g.Kapaalikas which do not belong to Hinduism Srisharmaa (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Kapalika was a non-Puranic, tantric form of Shaivism in India (Flood, ref in article). It definitely belongs to Hinduism. However, it is probably not significant enough to be mentioned in the lead. On the other hand, Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Śrauta are significant enough to deserve a place there. Other statements in your edit like This religion had no name in particular in the past as Hinduism predated all other religions and was the foremost and only religion that was spread all over the world need references for verifiability. Which images do you want to remove? Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please give sources to say kapaalikas are a non-Puranic, tantric form of Shaivism?.Italic text Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Śrauta are significant enough to deserve a place there.Italic text.Vaishnavism will come under Vishista-advaita sampradya which I have posted in Typology.Similarly,shaivism.There is no sampradya called srauta!.It is a common ritual that needs to be followed by all sampradayas.It does not deserve a place there.Italic text This religion had no name in particular in the past as Hinduism predated all other religions and was the foremost and only religion that was spread all over the world need references for verifiability.Italic textIt is said in "Deivathin Kural","Voice of the Divine" and the ultimate source which is are the teachings of seers etc.,Images to be removed:Ganesh,shivs seal,Valmiki,Navy shoulder board,Krishna vishvarupa.Srisharmaa (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Very Important note:As per Hinduism-references,citations,notes,Books written by western writers are not considered authoritative unless they provide a valid quotation from Vedic Scriptures.Just because one writes a misleading & interpolated book on Hinduism with half-baked Knowledge it cannot be considered authentic.Citations from Veda & Smritis,Purana,Ithihasas and the like are very essential.I can very well declare that MOST of the references given in this article will not be considered authentic by vedic scholars.Srisharmaa (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

For Kapalikas being a tantric form of Shaivism see The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, p. 212 by Gavin Flood. However, I have no issues with the sentence on Kapalikas being dropped from the lead. Vaishnavism is bigger and older than Vishista-advaita sampradaya, while Shaivism is represented by many other philosophical and theological schools such as Kashmir Shaivism, Pashupatas etc. which are distinct from Vedanta. Please don't replace these sects with Advaita/Vishista-advaita/Dvaita. As for Deivathin Kural, Chandrashekarendra Saraswati is not a scholarly reference. Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. We can't decide to ignore Wikipedia guidelines and use just Vedic scholars as reliable references for this article. Besides, using Vedas, Puranas etc. directly would amount to original research. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as Kapalikas are concerned I reiterate,As per Hinduism-references,citations,notes,Books written by western writers are not considered authoritative unless they provide a valid quotation from Vedic Scriptures.Just because one writes a misleading & interpolated book on Hinduism with half-baked Knowledge it cannot be considered authentic.Citations from Veda & Smritis,Purana,Ithihasas and the like are very essential.I can very well declare that MOST of the references given in this article will not be considered authentic by vedic scholars.No Vedic citations available at The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, p. 212 by Gavin Flood.Hence it is cannot be considered authentic to say that kaplikas belonged to Hinduism.Saying works of the renowned saint Chandrashekarendra Saraswati is ridiculous.("Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable").And also,Published Books of vedic scholars are always reliable if they are provided with vedic quotations.Srisharmaa (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Everything that Hindus practice is part of Hinduism. Kapālikas are also Hindus. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)