Talk:Hinduism

Image for lead

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)

Please 🙏 stipp 2001:5B0:43D6:C808:1752:27EA:6CCE:C9D0 (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Recent work on the "constructionism debate"

• 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)

  @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)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2024

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?

113.199.225.202 (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

 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)

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)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

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)

 Done, thanks. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2024

The word "territory" is incorrectly spelt as "terretory" in cite note 34.

"Réunion is not a country, but an independent French terretory." -> "Réunion is not a country, but an independent French territory." Sleet827 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Can't get the story right

The etymology section states: "The term Hinduism was first used by Raja Ram Mohan Roy in 1816–17."

Whereas the definition section states: "The term "Hinduism" was coined in Western ethnography in the 18th century." Note 13 states: "Hinduism is derived from Persian hindu- and the -ism suffix. It is first recorded in 1786, in the generic sense of "polytheism of India"."

So, which is it? 1816 or 1786? 100 years of "Indology" and they can't even figure out something this basic? 117.194.202.145 (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, with all it's imperfections. The great thing is, you can improve the article by checking the sources and editing the text. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't, the article is locked. The "sources" are the problem here. They are shite, written by people who don't seem to understand what they are doing. What's the point of tracking the history of an -ism formulation anyway? Wikipedia suggests -ism endings are themselves only a late 17th century invention. "religion of..." or "... religion" would have the common formulations before -ism words caught on. I don't see any discussion of the English word "Buddhism" on its Wikipedia page, and it would be supremely silly to suggest that it has any bearing on when the dharma of the Buddha came into being. But this stuff passes for "scholarship" in Indology. 117.194.202.145 (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It could be that it isn't saying that Ram Mohan Roy coined the term, just that he started using it in 1816-17. Is it that the term was coined in western ethnography in the late 18th century and then started to be used by Indians such as Ram Mohan Roy in the 19th century? If this is what the sources indicate (I can't be sure because I can't access all of them) then it needs to be edited to make this clearer. Brunton (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I've attributed the Roy-statement to Singh. 1786 is from etymonline; it does not give a specific rdference. Work in progress... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The source likely does say he coined the word, and whoever inserted the claim here clearly also did so to claim that it was coined by him. It's a popular claim.

My edit suggestion: remove the part starting with "In the 18th century ...". The source given, Mapping Hinduism, doesn't support the claim that it started being used in the 18th century. It specifically argues against that, giving an example from 1616, talking about the wicked religion of Hindoos or whatever. The rest of it is similarly trite nonsense, having nothing to do with the etymology of the word Hindu or Hinduism, presumably what the section is supposed to be about. 117.194.202.145 (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the Etymology section. The "Definitions" section would do best to avoid discussing the term, but talk instead of the concept, using whatever term people might have used. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not fixed. "Apparently coined" is a misrepresentation of the source: Sweetman states that there's no indication that the word was a neologism. He also directly contradicts the claim that Europeans "began" calling a group of people "in the 18th century". They were already ranting against the religion of "Hindoos" by 1616! They've probably done so since as long they've been in contact with Hindus. None of the following content about 1840s belongs in the etymology section. 117.194.202.145 (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Please propose the content you would like to see along with citations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

This is where that Sweetman citation comes from. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

What I understand from this huge page range, and also pages 56-58, is that "Hinduism" was a late entrant into the discussion. It was preceded by "heathenism", "Brahmanism" (in Portuguese), "Gentilism" (in French) and possibly "Gentooism" (in English). So the coinage of "Hinduism" or "HIndooism" was a non-event, except that it brought new scholarship to weigh in on the subject. It served the purpose of a buzzword. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you have that exactly right. This is why the etymology section going into detail about the coinage of Hinduism and "in the 18th" century is silly. The European Encounter with Hinduism by Jan Peter Schouten talks about it. He's a Protestant minister and comes with some bias, but it is still informative. You can read the Introduction. There was no single point where Europeans "began" to call anyone Hindu, that word was already current in the subcontinent and they just followed it. Do I need to propose citations to get things removed too? Shouldn't it be enough to point out that the text is not supported by the citations and do not belong to the section they are in? You've already removed it from the definitions section. 117.195.141.121 (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The European encounter is only a small part of the Etymology section. You shouldn't overblow it. If you can come up with what to write for the happenings before the coinage of "Hinduism", we can certainly cover it.

Note that "Hindu" is a much older term than "Hinduism" and there is a separate page on it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you're getting what I am saying. The etymology section currently contains all this:

In the 18th century, the European merchants and colonists began to refer to the followers of Indian religions collectively as Hindus.[45][46][note 11]

Nope. Not true. They weren't the ones to start it and certainly did not begin to do so in the 18th century. See Sweetman, and Schouten's Introduction.

The use of the English term "Hinduism" to describe a collection of practices and beliefs is a fairly recent construction. It was apparently coined (with the original spelling "Hindooism") by Charles Grant in 1787, who used it along with "Hindu religion". The first Indian to use "Hinduism" may have been Raja Ram Mohan Roy in 1816–17.[50][36]

All this is technically true, but useless. The use of the term "Buddhism" to describe the teachings of the Buddha is also a recent construction. There were other terms, in other European and Indian languages, before this. Sweetman makes this clear, and you've already made the changes in the definition section. Remove it from here too.

By the 1840s, the term "Hinduism" was used by those Indians who opposed British colonialism, and who wanted to distinguish themselves from Muslims and Christians.[34][51][52][53] Before the British began to categorise communities strictly by religion, Indians generally did not define themselves exclusively through their religious beliefs; instead identities were largely segmented on the basis of locality, language, varna, jāti, occupation, and sect.[54][note 12]

This is dubious, at best "technically true". Note 12 is barely relevant to the text it's next to let alone the etymology section. In any case, none of this is relevant to the etymology of "Hinduism", but makes a definational point about the development of an identity around the term/category. Remove it, or move it down to the definition section. 117.195.141.121 (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

One issue at a time please. Otherwise we won't get anywhere. Let us stick to the Etymology section for now.

The first objection you raise is a non-issue. The section doesn't say that the Europeans "started" it. There is a long discussion of the history of the term "hindus".

The second objection is also non-issue. The Etymology section needs to describe what is known about the history of the term "Hinduism" (which is what this page is about). If something is missing, you can suggest adding it. But you can't say it is "useless" and so it shoutd be gotten rid of.

The comparison with "Buddhism" also doesn't hold water. That term was already in use in Indian languages, such as Baudha dharma or Baudha mata. So, perhaps that term doesn't need any discussion. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It literally does say that. What else is "In the 18th century, the European merchants and colonists began to refer to the followers of Indian religions collectively as Hindus" supposed to mean there? That they didn't begin to do something in the 18th century? If it's meaningless drivel and isn't supposed to say anything, just remove it.

You state above: "It was preceded by "heathenism", "Brahmanism" (in Portuguese), "Gentilism" (in French) and possibly "Gentooism" (in English)". Add this statement, along with the various dates associated with the term into the two part I object to. It currently gives a false impression that the introduction of the term Hinduism was some special event.

And there was also Hindu dharma before Hinduism? You've surely read the Lorenzen paper and this section where this is mentioned. Are you trolling? 117.195.141.121 (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's a mention of "Hindu dharma" in Chaitanya Charitamrita, (Adi 17.174). The work was composed circa 1557. Where does the notion that term "Hinduism" predates Hindu dharma come from? What reason is there to devote so much attention to the European term Hinduism when the principle reason cited is bunkum? 117.195.141.121 (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This page is on "Hinduism" and its etymology is what is being discussed. (I have said that already.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

You are also missing an important point. "Hindu religion" and "Hindu dharma" mean the religion of the "hindus", whoever they might be. You might also find terms like "Turaka dharma", "Yavana dharma", "China dharma" etc., without needing to think of any of them as names of religions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay. There are two other points. 117.195.141.121 (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I finished all the clean-up I wanted to do. Please take a look. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

This tendency to stonewall and minimise any concessions to editors with opposing viewpoints is frustrating. I don't have any complaints at this point Just an observation, one citation says: "Most passages identified a mix of religious and cultural norms. For instance, the texts refer to the “Hindu god” (hindura īśvara) and “Hindu treatise” (hindu-śāstre), on the one hand, and to “hindu clothes” (hindu-beśa), on the other."" Why does the author think that a "Hindu dress" is a cultural rather than religious norms? In India, dress is usually more of a religious norm than cultural: when Modi said that "you can identify them by their clothes", he wasn't referring to just a "cultural norm". Food, clothing, washing, housing, festivals, are all religious norms. The author imposes a binary that doesn't exist in India even in modern times, let alone when these texts were written. 117.195.142.30 (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Will Sweetman

So I have been reading bits and pieces of Will Sweetman's book, because a helpful editor provided a meaningless page range for mundane stuff and so I ended up having to hunt for things. It seemed to me to be a pretty bold book, especially when I saw him say von Steitencron's understanding was "flawed", my jaw dropped.

So I went to check what reception the book got. I found that there was only book review, by Paul Zavos, but the review was pretty much content-free. It seemed as if Zavos didn't even understand what the book was about. Or maybe he did, but didn't want to upset his colleagues :-) Then I found an article co-authored by Zavos (doi:10.1080/09584930500194868) and multiple references have been made to Sweetman. So all is not lost. Google Scholar shows 80+ citations for the book, but that is apparently low in the Hinduism field. Lipner's book has 500+ citations. (I didn't know Hinduism was that hot!)

In any case, Sweetman made the entire book downloadable from his website [3]. So please read it and we can see what we can make out of it.

Happy holidays! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Sweetman isn't the only one to criticise von Steitencron. Some of the recent works of Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Baghcee also talk of the "passions" of Paul Hacker and discuss von Steitencron's work. 117.195.142.30 (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Paul Hacker seems to be the first Westerner who put out this "Hinduism was invented by the British" thing. It was picked by the likes of Vasudha Dalimia and von S. later, who used "subaltern" and "Orientalist critique" language to dress up Hacker's ideas. 117.195.142.30 (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)