Talk:Hindus

Archives
July 2005 - Feb 2006 Mar 2006 - April 2008

Archived

Old material has been archived.

Hindu and Hinduism

Just like Jain redirects to Jainism and Buddhist redirects to Buddhism, I see no reason why Hindu should not redirect to Hinduism. They both cover the same material 100%. One is just the name of the religion while the other is just the name of the people who follow that religion. Can anybody convince me that the two articles need to be separate? If not, I will merge them soon. Thanks Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Christian and Christianity, also Muslim and Islam are different.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes also Jew is different from Judaism, except Jew talks about the race and Judaism talks about the religion. With Muslim and Islam, the Muslim article mainly talks about the usage of the term Muslim and its etymology. Muslim and Islam are different words and so their etymologies differ. Hindu and Hinduism both come from the same Sindhu word. And the Christian articles doesn't have much too. The Christianity article doesn't talk about etymology so the Christian page does. The only other thing the Christian page has is translations of "Christian" in other langauges.

But both Hindu and Sikh cover exactly the same stuff as Hinduism and Sikhism. The only difference is that Hindu and Sikh's information is unsourced, POV, long and messy when the main articles are in far better condition. It seems that the only logical reason to keep the Hindu article is to move the etymology section if Hinduism becomes too large. Other than that, it should redirect. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 13:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I don't think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good enough argument to prevent merging the two articles together (although I admit I also used it but I had other reasons too). After merging I would of course be very open to discussing this further and won't mind even somebody reverts as long as they have a good reason. For Hindu and Hinduism to exist separately, somebody has to explain the differences in content and purpose for each article.

Anybody can currently see that both articles at the moment almost talk about the same things, the main difference is just that Hindu is more POV, OR and unsourced than Hinduism. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 21:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• No redirect - I strongly disagree. Please see Jew and Judaism, which provides a proper example for such articles as Hindu and Hinduism - one is an individual identity, the other consist of cultural, ethnic and religious phenomenom. This is the important difference between these two terms, and like Jew and Judaism, these two terms more than deserve their own articles. This is clear. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• The main different is that Jew also refers to an ethnic group in addition to a follower of Judaism. The followers of Hinduism consist of a number of South Asian ethnic groups eg. Bengali people, Tamil people, Marathi people, Nepali people, Punjabi people, etc. Note that while articles like Secular Jewish culture and Jewish languages exist and are talked about in Jew, there are no Hindu languages or Hindu culture/Secular Hindu culture page since it is only a religion and not an ethnicity.

• Jain, Buddhist, Sikh, Taoist, Confucianist, Zoroastrian do not have separate articles about "identity." More importantly we don't have identity articles for Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta and Smarta. If we were to have a Hindu identity page, it would be good outline what be discussed, and especially what topics will be discussed that are not common with Hinduism. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• The above statements oversimplify Hindu identity - and Hinduism. As far as the term Hindu, this range of identity clearly includes modern identities such as Hindutva (a clear Hindu identity) and other diverse Hindu identies. There is clearly a difference between Hindu and Hinduism. Also, the above assertion that all Jews are members of one ethnic group is unfounded - as there are Beta Israel, Sephardic Jews, Mountain Jews, etc... The two, Hindu and Hinduism, are seperate subjects and deserve seperate articles. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, I won't mind if you revert me but the Hindu page just before merging was exactly the same as Hinduism except unsourced and POV. I hope it isn't reverted until a rewrite (at least a stub) is planned for it because there seemed to be nothing distinct between Hindu identity and Hinduism. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading the discussion, I conclude that there is no consensus to redirect Hindu to Hinduism. I'm reverting. AdjustShift (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly there does not appear to be any consensus to redirect, except it seems just the opposite. Moreover the material of this article does not appear in the other - not a merge. Hinduism article is quite large already. Wikid^{as ⇋ talk to me} 19:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[Linguistics of Hinduism]

I don't think anyone really understands what is trying to be said here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greventlv (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right. The articles on Hindu and Hinduism have put the cart before the horse. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep you are both right. It was a silly section. I think it was meant to be about what languages the Hindu scriptures are in. But it is kind of obvious that originally they were all written in Sanskrit, then later in modern Indian tongues like Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, etc. and more recently in English. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Any hindus here who could comment/revert back to my edit on the page creationism?

I did about 3 hours of research and synthesized what I could understand about the Hindu ideas of creation into a small section of this article creationism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism, which user:Hrafn deleted as unsourced material. I am not a hindu and am hoping to find some help from here. If you agree with my edits, then I ask for your help to please revert to version 305397409 of the main page by finding appropriate source materials. If you can source it to existing hindu texts online it will be super. Books would be best.

Here is what I wrote. You can see the much smaller current version of creationism, which mostly talks only about the christian point of view. I feel it is very important to represent multiple views on creation on the creationism article. Thanks for your help.

Hinduism and creationism

Main article: creationism

- A variety of theories exist regarding the universe, but in general the Hindu view of the cosmos is both eternal and cyclic. An account is recorded in the scriptures according to which the universe, the Earth, along with humans and other creatures undergo repeated cycles of creation and destruction (pralaya) depending on whether it is the day or night for the creator god Brahma of the Hindu Trinity. Put simply, creation occurs when Brahma is awake as his lila (amusement) and the universe is destroyed when he sleeps. The time scales of the Hindu creation cycle correspond roughly to the modern cosmology. According to Carl Sagan, "A day of Brahma is 8.64 billion years long, longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang". + According to Carl Sagan, "A day of Brahma is 8.64 billion years long, longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang". - - In general, many Hindus also believe in evolution due to the serial progression of avatars, which are similar to the scientific concept of evolution. When Brahma is awake, in addition to all life, the god also creates "avatars" which are (manifestations) of the second god in the trinity, Vishnu. There are several stages and avatars of several gods, (25 in some texts, but the 10 attributed to Vishnu, called Dasavatara of Vishnu), are important in maintaining life. Among the ten major avatars, nine have already appeared and the final one will appear in the future (at the end of the Brahma's day when all time ends). The 8.4 billion years is divided into four epochs or yugas, named in reverse order (4 or Sathya, 3 or treta , 2 or dwapara and 1 or Kali) of progression in time. The avatars of Vishnu start with the non human: the first is a fish (Matsya), then a tortoise (Kurma), then a boar (Varaha) and finally a half-man/half-lion (Narasimha); all of which appeared in the Satya Yuga (or the "pure age or true age"). The first humanoid, a dwarf man (Vamana), then appears, followed by an axe bearing man (Parashurama), and then appears a fully human avatar (Ramachandra), all described in the Treta Yuga (third epoch). More human avatars appear in the next, Dwapara Yuga (or second epoch), with Krishna (meaning 'dark colored' or 'very attractive') avatar, along with his brother Balarama (or Buddha in other texts). When Krishna disappeared from the earth, the final epoch or Kali Yuga (the "foul" age or the "age of Anger") started. We are now living in the Kali Yuga. The only avatar expected in this epoch is the final avatar Kalki (in some texts Shiva), also called "the destroyer of foulness", or "Eternity", or simply "time"). This is the final of the god trinity, who will bring with him the end of the life and time cycles and all life will be released from Brahma's lila or maya (translates to play or farce or unreality) to rejoin the cosmic consciousness or Brahman to attain (moksha). Then Brahma will sleep until his next day comes, when he wakes up the life cycles and time cycles begin once again.

Ummm … except for the Sagan quote, (and the pre-existing material) it is "unsourced". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The preceding was in response to User:Thampran's original WP:CANVAS, to which I'd like to add the point that WP:Synthesis is specifically forbidden. In response to his alteration to it thereafter, I'd like to point out that the point of WP:V is to have sources before you write the material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Native thinkers in India have relied on the Vedas, the Mahabharata, the Puranas, and such ancient texts. Much imprecision and misrepresentation has prevailed in modern scholarship in English due to inaccurate translations. That has not affected the way the natives have been living their lives imbued with rich faith-based traditions. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism issues

Many edits to this article were made by 59.160.106.1, who has vandalized several other articles. Most of the changes made to this article don't seem to be justified. I don't have the time to sort it all out due to the large number of intervening edits. I restored the notice box and disambig. reference at the top of the article that were removed without other edits by 59.160.106.1. Please remove the portions of the notice box that have actually been fixed more recently. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You have to specifically list your concerns with the article. Having a list of templates is not at all beneficial and as a matter of fact, degrades the article even further. Therefore, I'm removing your templates until you specifically list your concerns with the article here. --Nosedown (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

They weren't my concerns to start with; I'm not a regular contributor to this article. I'm only trying to help you in correcting vandalism. The templates had been in the article until 11 June 2009 when they were removed without any corresponding body edits by User:59.160.106.1. This user has vandalized a large number of pages. This user also removed numerous templates throughout the body of the article indicating exactly where citations were required (please see the 6 edits on 11 June 2009). I was unable to revert the body edits due to conflicts with intervening edits. If you believe that recent body edits correct the deficiencies that had been identified, then the header templates would no longer be required. However, there can be no doubt that the {{dablink}} is still required. I had restored this along with the header templates. It was lost again when you undid my edits. Please restore it as I don't want to get into an edit war on this article. UncleDouggie (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism should be stopped. It is an uphill task, and may be a thankless job, but I hope some fellow user will do us the favor. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Over A Billion?

The page says Hinduism has over a billion adherents, according to Major_religious_groups, only 828 million. Is this a mistake? Or not clear enough? Maybe I'm missing something. I I K I I (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If Hinduism is recognized as a comprehensive term, then the information in the article is quite accurate. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Chaitanya Charitamrita

Arjun, the word 'hindu' (directly or with suffixes) is altogether mentioned 22x in the whole CC, the main biography of Shri Chaitanya (see http://faculty.washington.edu/kpotter/ckeyt/txt4.htm under Visvanatha Cakravartin). It's a fact, not claim, and moreover an important one due to being one of the early ones. Jan 90.177.206.31 (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source (i.e., besides the text of CC itself) for the word Hindu being used in the text ? Also can you specify the exact edition of CC that you are referring to, and quote the relevant verse from it. Abecedare (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"While a Hindu identity (as we might understand it today) developed during the nineteenth century, the term “Hindu” does occur in earlier Sanskrit and Bengali hagiographic texts (such as the Caitanya-caritamrta) from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries." (Gavin Flood. Hinduism, Vaisnavism, and ISKCON: Authentic Traditions or Scholarly Constructions? http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/flood_gavin_hinduismvaisismandiskcon.htm)

Dimock and Stewart edition (Harvard Oriental Series, 56.) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674002857/ gives in Subject Index, p. 1123, these verse references: Hindu, 1.17.120,167,171,189,194-97,205; 2.16.160,176

Regarding primary quotes from religious texts, they're used extensively in Wikipedia (see e.g. Quran). Jan 90.177.206.31 (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The Flood reference is right on the point.

As for use of primary sources: it is ok to use primary sources to supplement a point made by secondary sources; however trying to interpret a primary source by ourselves is frowned upon, since the provenance of the specific text, context, and language - all can require expert knowledge of the field. See WP:PSTS for the relevant wikipedia policy. (This is just for future refernce and no longer an issue in this instance). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded upon the discussion referencing the O'Connell article that Flood cites. It forms a nice bridge betwen the purely geographic use and use of the term to define a specific religious idenitity.

One note: Though Flood says that the term is found in both "Sanskrit and Bengali hagiographic texts", the O'Connell article limits its known occurrences to Bengali texts ("Nowhere in the three Sanskrit texts surveyed for this purpose, nor to the best of my recollection in other Sanskrit materials of the movement that I have read, does 'Hindu' occur."). I am following the O'Connell reference in my edit since Flood seems to have based his claim on that article, and does not provide any independent example of Sanskrit text. Feel free to tweak my edit, if you think of something appropriate. Abecedare (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this edit of Abecedare ;Is it necessary to add "(i.e., "foreigners" or "barbarians" respectively; terms used to refer to Muslims)". Isn't linking Yavana and Mleccha enough? . Arjun⁰²⁴ 13:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I somehow didn't think of checking if wikipedia has articles on the terms. I think we still need to clarify that the terms, as used in the Gaudiya texts, referred to Muslims, but instead of listing their meaning here, we can simply wikilink to Yavana#Later_meanings and Mleccha respectively. If that sounds ok to you, feel free to make the edits you recommended. Abecedare (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Arjun⁰²⁴ 15:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Corroborative Source: From my firsthand knowledge as a scholar, I am strongly inclined to agree with Abecedare that another authoritative documentary source should be sought to support the information contained in the Potter document under reference regarding Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Kanchanamala (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh

It has been discovered that this book:

• Gupta, Om. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Gyan Publishing House, 2006. ISBN 8182053897, 9788182053892.

Contains significant amounts of material plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. (Some other books from the same publisher also have this problem). There is no practical way of determining which material came from Wikipedia, and which came from other sources. Further, widespread plagiarism is an indication of poor scholarship. For those reasons, and according to Wikipedia policy, WP:CIRCULAR, I will deleting all citations to the book. However I will not delete the material that cites it, as there's no indication that the material is inaccurate. For more background, see WP:RSN#Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books, or the archive it goes there.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a wikipedia mirror, so Dhruvekhera's use of it to support a dubious claim is a circular argument. Om Gupta's "encyclopedia" cannot be used as a reference. --Ragib (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think so too. Kanchanamala (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Written (documented) Language

The Vedas are perhaps the oldest documented literature the Indian subcontinent has provided civilization. These literature are a result of generations of oration finally obtained by the Aryans who presumably found ancient Sanskrit. The diction of the modern texts presumes many things words were not yet coined for. Hence, understanding the Vedas ought to indulge "reading between the lines.'

Example: The Big Bird, "garur", in Hindu scriptures is literally defined in modern references as a genus but most certainly portrays an aviation craft or some solar-driven winged machine capable of aerial combat. This misrepresentation can only be accounted for by the absence of un-coined diction in the era the story was first documented.

The sciences of the Vedas have not been justly portrayed or presented in modern revisions of these great books. Much more non-philosophical, academic approach needs to be engaged to reveal the cultural sciences of a lot of these teachings.

It is not accurate to present Hinduism (Sind Culture)as religious. Hinduism (before Mohenjo/Daro)is an evolved culture that goes back some two thousand years. It is, as we see in Bollywood, a very aggressively changing culture.

Jodhan B. Heeraman at jodhanj@yahoo.com 190.80.59.15 (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Over time the Vedic practice [karma-kaanda] has become obscure. In recent centuries we have some helpful sources such as the Nairuktas, the Saayana-bhaashya, and the commentaries of Uvata and Mahidhara. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Article scope

If this article is supposed to remain separate from Hinduism, it must make sure that it doesn't keep going off on tangents discussing the definition or history of Hinduism as a whole. It needs to focus on the term "Hindu", Hindu identity and its definition and history. This begins with the first application of the Persian exonym in the medieval period, and continues through the adoption of "Hindu" and "Hinduism" as a self-designation in colonial India, to the point of the formation of the hybrid compound "Hindutva" in the 20th century. --dab (𒁳) 13:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. The article was basically a duplicate of Hinduism rather than focussing on the term. Thanks for starting to fix it. Shreevatsa (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The article says that Hindu is derived from word Sindhu. This cannot be considered totally correct. This is because the term is also meant "Ancient" or "Old" apart from word Sindhu. That is why all the ancient traditions can be incorporated into the term. Otherwise if it only meant Sindhu then tolerance among other practices could not have been there as it exists. This meaning can be seen in many Indian languages particularly Kannada and anyone can check this out. Therefore Hindu and Hinduism means ancient traditions of Indian region. This can be incorporated into the article after suitable verification. Thanks.27.57.127.110 (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sekharnet, 2 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Swastika has been depicted in the page but its real meaning has not been explained. Essentially Swastika is the Brahmi script of the word Aum (Oom). It can be noted when we look at the brahmi alphabets and how 'O' and 'hm' is written in Brahmi script. Sekharnet (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That explanation disagrees with the one on Swastika, although that explanation is also uncited. In any event, I think the info is better added over there, not here, and even if we really do want to add it here, we need a citation. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

swastika is a sign which indicates swasti (well-being). - Apte's dictionary. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Vegetarianism, Beef, Pork

Why don't those match when I search the article? What am I doing wrong. Someone removed the fact that pork is not allowed to the pork article. I'm trying to find out which is right. I am looking for mention of it here to swipe the reference. What gives? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaahhhhhh Hinduism. I get it. Oh well, I guess I'm keeping the old saying alive: "Fools rush in where fools have been before." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hinduism merely says that what we eat affects our mind and body. The individual eater makes the choice for himself or herself. Beef and pork have not been on the menu in Hindu culture. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 175.141.69.17, 21 June 2011

<original> Originally, Hindu was a secular term which was used to describe all inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent (or Hindustan) irrespective of their religious affiliation. </original>

Originally, Hindu was A Persian distortion of the Sanskrit term Sindu i.e. the River Indus (one of the seven holy rivers in India) which denoted One Who Resides Along The River Sindhu. It is in fact a geographical statement and not a religious statement. The people who resided in what was then a continent i.e. Bharatha (भारत) named after the Great Emperor Bharatha (भारत) did not actually have a religion or secular religion but practiced a principle called Sanathana Dharma which means A Way Of Life. However, due to modern interpretation the term Sanathana Dharma is not used very often, as an alternative, Hindu is used.

175.141.69.17 (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GaneshBhakt (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Good decision, GaneshBhakt, good decision. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

here it should be brought to notice that sikhism is not part of hindusim but an independant religion and section of of constitution of india which is quoted is highly controversial so some other source should be used to define hinduism — Preceding unsigned comment added by MANNIKAHLON (talk • contribs) 09:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you regard Hinduism as a comprehensive term then it will include not only Sikhism but Jainism and Buddhism also. If not, Sikhism will stand independent of Hinduism. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Good decision, GaneshBhakt, as some of the info given in this edit request was incorrect e.g. Sanatana Dharma does not mean 'A Way of Life'. It's literal translation, as given in the Hinduism article is Sanatana meaning eternal or everlasting and Dharma meaning (roughly - there is no exact English translation) duties, the truth or nature. GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 19:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Undy999, 1 September 2011

Hinduism is not 5000 yeas old, this is only concocted by Christian thinking as it would faulsify Christian concepts. Hinduism is older than History itself. Lord Ram roamed the earth 900000 years ago. According to legend Hinduism is 1960853112 years old. Undy999 (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Good decision, Avenue X, as while Hinduism may be as old as Undy999 says it is, the earliest proof of Hinduism's existence we have is from roughly 5000 years ago - 900,000 years could be true but there is no evidence we have of this. And the second number is 'according to legend'. No sources. GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 19:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible bias

I would just like to quote some text from the article: 'Followers of the Bhakti movement moved away from the abstract concept of Brahman, which the philosopher Adi Shankara consolidated a few centuries before, with emotional, passionate devotion towards the more accessible Avatars, especially Krishna and Rama.^[13]' Isn't saying 'the more accessible Avatars' strictly a point of view, and not neutral information? I would be interested to hear other users' responses to this possible bias. I could be wrong! Thanks, GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 19:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"More accessible" definitely constitutes weasel wording. Would "personal avatars" or something similar not be better? JonC^Talk 19:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think 'personal avatars' would make much difference in this context e.g. 'with emotional, passionate devotion towards the (more) personal Avatars' would still, in my view, be weasel wording, as you are calling the Avatars 'more personal', which is still strictly a matter of opinion, and not factual. Do you think 'towards what they believed as the more accessible Avatars' would cut it? GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 12:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I will make the change to what I suggested as I think it will be better than the current use of weasel wording. Thanks, GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 10:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There are more than 20 avatars listed in the Bhāgavata Purāņa. 10 of them have been traditionally cited as "Ten Avatars" [daśāvatāra]. I for one have no idea what an accessible avatar means. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that they moved towards what they believed as the more accessible avatars. I'm not saying that avatars are accessible, as this is strictly a point of view. What I mean is that followers of the Bhakti movement moved towards what they believed as the more accessible avatars (to gain 'access' to the ultimate reality (Brahman)). This means that avatars can be used to feel closer to God, as avatars are intended to be a form of a deity on earth, symbolising perfection within that form and the ideals that man should follow, therefore making it easier to follow these ideals rather than worshipping what the followers believed as the abstract, formless, and hard to visualise concept of Brahman. I hope I have cleared things up, and please feel free to add my explanation into the article in whatever words you wish to use. Thanks, GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 15:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Broken Link - Note 18

The following is the corrected link for Note 18.

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5047

Please update the article accordingly. I am unable to update since its protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.235.247 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hinduism in Fiji

Hinduism in Fiji is vast as 30% of Fijians are Hindus, The Ramayan is vast as a scripture in Fiji.

Definition

Can some one tell me is this title justified in the article? If yes can you please explain! The information in this subtitle contains various set of expressions of different kind of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish rdkb (talk • contribs) 02:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sanatandharma (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CTJF83 14:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that i ended up you in confusion! I mean this article is about Hindu not Hindu-ism, I think there is a difference in these both of the terms. There is one more article called "Hinduism". There we can have various ideas expressed by people.... Because already in the etymology we have defined the Term Hindu!