From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This Hinduism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


The world's oldest extant religion? I would imagine Japan's Shintoh might contest that assertion. PoorEd 13:29, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Looking into the "oldest religion" topic a bit more, I find that no one really knows how old religions like Shintoh and Zoroasterism really are, as they probably originated in ancient shamanic animist religions way before written records existed to document them. Looks like Hinudism may be the oldest extant documented religion. PoorEd 13:37, 11 February 2008 (EST)


This is all we could find out about the faith of hundreds of millions of people? I'm doing a course on eastern religions this (southern) summer, so we'll see if I can find stuff out... Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 00:08, 21 November 2008 (EST)

SOmeone stopped by the library where I work yesterday and droped off 4 shopping bags full of books on Hinduism and related stuff - Yoga, TM, etc. However, having just sworn off adding referneces . . ..... I'm . . . . . . . . . . ....conflicted. Testy too. Carptrash 00:15, 21 November 2008 (EST)
Adding refs is so much harder when they's books. It's so easy to link to some crap on the tubes, but a book requires finding the title page, formatting, typing, etc. Hope you got some good stuff in those 4 bags! I loves me books I'll never get a chance to read! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:45, 21 November 2008 (EST)

"gods and goddesses that all are facets of one God"?[edit]

Hinduism makes sense if you stop looking at its metaphysics system via the lenses of Western religious discourse. A deva/i ("god/goddess") is not the same as "Brahma" (God), so Hinduism is neither monotheistic nor polytheistic. It is simply pan-theistic. Hindus, unlike Christians, as a result of this understand that worship is irrelevant, but adherence to universal justice and "works uninvolved" (meaning sincerity and generosity) In fact, a lot of Asian religion makes sense the moment you stop assuming that they claim they are scientific truths or claim to represent how the universe works. Asian religion and philosophy does not work the same way as Judaeo-Christian religion. I believe that your approach to religion is as wrong as Conservapedia's approach to science. Have a nice day. Signed, JanusGenio (not logged in) 01:59, 19 February 2009 (EST)

It would be nice to respond to this, but sentences along the lines of : Hindus, unlike Christians, as a result of this understand that worship is irrelevant, but adherence to universal justice and "works uninvolved" (meaning sincerity and generosity) Make it a little difficult.--Bobbing up 02:10, 19 February 2009 (EST)
People worry too much about labels. Hinduism does not fit into monotheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, etc. Instead Hinduism is more about the experience of God on the person. There is no wrong way to experience God in Hinduism due to how it came into being from the Vedic religions. To some followers this might mean that they feel a more personal God and to others they might feel that God is more like nature itself and others feel more inclined to align themselves with one of the main ideologies of God. If no one has any issues I would love to include this in the article and remove the information about being both monotheistic and polytheistic. Quazywabbit (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. If Hinduism is anything like Christianity it's likely a bit subjective and open to interpretation. Would be useful to include some references for that. ConcernedResident Fightin' round the world 18:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I made some minor edits on the section and put in a reference as well and will try to add some more information when I can. Quazywabbit (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I found your edits to be of a humanly-acceptable quality and have been marking them as "patrolled" (that's a good thing). ħumanUser talk:Human 01:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Atheism and Hinduism[edit]

The curious thing about Hinduism(and with other religions of Indian origin such as Buddhism and Jainism) is that they treat atheism also as a "religiously valid" doctrine. There are "influential" schools of thought in the Hindu tradition which simply reject the notion of a God/Goddess cretaing and administering the Universe. I am adding this to the article, with a reference to Wikipedia. Circe (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Preposterous and Oppressive[edit]

"Hinduism is the most preposterous and oppressive of all religions". Wow. I am not a fan of Hinduism either, but is this really a proper statement to put in an article. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That whole section was a disaster; I rewrote it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This version looks less biased. Thanks! Mr. Anon (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Connections to "indo european myths"[edit]

For what it's worth, this paragraph is very weasel and flimsy. It may well be facutal, but as presented, it sounds like someone once read a myth and said "oh, look it has men in it -- and this one has men... they are somehow linked". Gods fight all the time, world wide, causePink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 14:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC) humans fight. So we should, if we ever have time to care, look into specifics.

The Suttee/Sati section and its problems[edit]

I've rewritten the claims as they sounded like both blatant Hindu apologetics and Hindu nationalistic "It's all because of the Muslim"-guilt shifting. First off, the quote is from ISKCON and I find it about as solid a ground for the "un-Hinduistic" character of sati as the "convenient" Mormon revelations that reversed societally reviled practices such as polygamy or the view of black people. Add to that the ridiculousness of sourcing this claim to a time before Hinduism even existed and I think it's obvious that this is an unholy mix of the bad kind of historical revisionism, No True Scotsman, and of course Hare Krishna creationism. While I couldn't immediately check the Encyclopaedia Indica, I could easily source The Danger of Gender: Caste, Class and Gender in Contemporary Indian Women's Writing and the cited page (p. 9) most emphatically lays the blame for the increased prevalence of sati during the Muslim invasion at the feet of re-entrenchment of the caste system, not Muslim rape or abduction: "Around 1000 AD the prohibition of remarriage for widows among the top castes was extended to child widows for fear of intermarriage with Muslims and the subsequent conversion. The incidence of sati increased particularly in the warring regions of the North. The widows were often forced onto the pyre by their husband's relatives or by their sons. During this time, widows were considered as an ill omen and they were reduced to beggars or prostitutes". In sum, while there were sources they were really bad and the conclusions drawn were seriously flawed. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That's totally fair. Ikanreed (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it is a common view, that the practice is forbidden since Kaliyuga.[1] There are traces of Hinduism since mesolithic. See [2] Contractor (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
First, I've already pointed out the problematic nature of the claim about the religious-based ban on sati, both in terms of provenance, chronology and No True Scotsman elements. There's probably a reason why the Wikipedia article on satiWikipedia never mentions the Kali Yuga prohibition, and contrary to your source, it actually remarks: "Within the dharmashastric tradition espousing sati as a justified, and even recommended, option to ascetic widowhood, there remained a curious conception worth noting the achieved status for a woman committing sati." Now, this is hardly conclusive evidence either, but opinions seem rather divided on the subject of sati and the Dharmaśāstrasas as indicated by this source from the University of texas (note that the suffix .pdf is missing): "Visṇụ (20.39; 25.14) is also the first to mention a widow following her husband onto the funeral pyre (→ satī). These are the only places that widow burning is recorded in any of the early Dharmaśāstras; this custom should be seen as a somewhat late introduction into the Dharmashastric tradition."
Secondly, "traces of Hinduism since mesolithic" is not what the source actually says. Instead, it uses the extremely vague and cautious phrase (I've added the emphases) that "Much of what we now call Hinduism may have had roots in cultures that thrived in South Asia long before the creation of textual evidence that we can decipher with any confidence. Remarkable cave paintings have been preserved from Mesolithic sites dating from c. 30,000 BCE [...]." Then it says that paintings of local animal life and a mythological figure may be such traces, but this is conjecture so tenuous that it verges on PIDOOMA, since such figures are well known from all over the worldWikipedia. Indeed, the argument sounds pretty much like the pseudohistorical claims for their religion's antiquity found in various strains of Neopaganism (e.g. the Goddess movement). ScepticWombat (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article present the argument about total prohibition. I am sure of one thing that Dharmasastra is known to have condemn the practice.
Anways, cave paintings must match with a religious figure then only they can be considered as related with the religion, much of the rock cave art is just made up of anything, for example, there are also paintings in the Sanghao Caves (of Pakistan), but they are not reported to have depicted any god, there is no connection.
I think it would be better if we can trim some part of that section. Contractor (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
"Anways, cave paintings must match with a religious figure then only they can be considered as related with the religion, much of the rock cave art is just made up of anything, for example, there are also paintings in the Sanghao Caves (of Pakistan), but they are not reported to have depicted any god, there is no connection." And that's exactly why the claim of even a tenuous conclusion that the Bhimbetka paintings are any sort of indication of a Hindu precursor is so ridiculous. The author herself can't make any explicit connection between Hindu deities and the paintings. It's similar to how Neopagans use such images as "The Sorcerer"Wikipedia from the Tris Frères cave paintings as "evidence" of their religion's ancient lineage (they see it as an image of The Horned GodWikipedia).
As for trimming the section, that's fine by me. I only rewrote a recently added expansion which contained those rather silly "sati is not really Hindu"-claims. Sure, sati is not a major part of Hinduism and seems to (have) be(en) a largely high-caste phenomenon, but pretending that it's practically unrelated to Hinduism is similar to certain Christians claiming the crusades were not really Christian, or Muslims claiming that Islamist terrorists are not really Muslims: The epitome of No True Scotsman. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No deadline, and I have changed a little bit. Contractor (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The new version seems quite fair, though I removed "social" as I don't think it added anything. I would even agree that sati has arguably been overemphasised as somehow the sign of Indian/Hindu barbarism by British colonialism (this has been pointed out by scholars involved in Subaltern StudiesWikipedia), and that a discussion of this element might be an interesting addition. The concerted campaign of the British Raj devoted to stamping out sati, while it had a sympathetic objective in my eyes, also had more than a little whiff of mission civilisatriceWikipedia about it. As I've already said, my main concern was the "hand washing" elements in the version prior to my edits. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia+Lack of Information[edit]

Could we use Wikipedia to improve this article, because right now it is pretty shitty. Nothing on the tri-fold, Bhoomi (the Devi (female god) of the Earth) who is depicted as a cow, nothing on Vedas, Hindu nationalism, Ayurveda, caste, etc. While the Wikipedia isn't the best, it's much better than this. I'm too lazy to sign in as myself, so I'll put my name here (Qwed117) (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Pls do. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 01:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hindu friend sent me this[edit]

"Religious as I am, I accept that there's really no proof that God does exist. So why am I religious, you might ask? It's because I believe that certain things have no end. You can split the atom, you have gone down to the Higgs Boson. But now let me ask, what made the Higgs-Boson?

You see my point? According to the theory of relativity, energy is neither created nor destroyed. But it can be converted to mass. Now let's say some energy, the energy of the Big Bang created a seemingly infinite number of Higgs Bosons. What did that Big Bang come from? Nothing? Therein lies the fundamental flaw in the theory of relativity, which physicists acknowledge. So surely, there's some force which created these laws of physics. Some force that created everything, right? You don't need to believe that that force is a humanoid with three eyes and a blue body, or that ultimate force is a four headed being sitting on a lotus; or it is some shapeless form.

God can be anything. It can be that infinite burst of energy as well. That's what Hinduism says. The true scriptures actually don't speak of a single God, or even multiple. They only speak of one ultimate reality, and also speak of the concept called, "Aham Brahmasmi", which means "I am God". Yes, it actually states that you can be God. Because you create your own world you see? In a way, you can be God, because all of us, according to the book, are extensions, or pieces of that ultimate reality."-- (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a Hinduism oriented rephrasing of the Argument from first cause and it's still flimsy. It says "because you don't know what precipitated X, you can't know, therefor my religion did" and it's been made over and over and over again through history, with different things being listed as unexplainable. If you're attempting to prove something, you not only have to say "You don't know why X" but instead have to say "I know Y because of evidence for Y". ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It's also a bit of pantheism dressed up in modern physics. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
And the true scriptures probably don't encompass those claiming that, for instance, Adam's BridgeWikipedia was built by RamWikipedia and his army of "ape men",Wikipedia or similar bits of blatant woo, right? ScepticWombat (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It was also written by somebody who has no idea about relativity. "According to the theory of relativity, energy is neither created nor destroyed." - No, that would be thermodynamics. What did that Big Bang come from? Nothing? Therein lies the fundamental flaw in the theory of relativity, which physicists acknowledge - The Big bang - that would really be cosmology.
Then there is the utterly unsupported assumption that everything was created by "something".
Finally it's flirting with the old defining God into existence trick. If you define God properly then you can easily show God exists. So I define "God" as being my coffee cup. My coffee cup exists - so God exists.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, this page needs a serious makeover[edit]

As an ex-Hindu myself, the content on this page is nauseatingly pro-Hindu biased. I was under the impression that this wiki was supposed to attack religion, not admire it. I'm going to try and write more on the negative aspects of this cancerous religion. (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem very pro-Hindu, more like it's overall neutral, but if you can write something good and highly critical of Hinduism, then go ahead. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
RationalWiki is not here to attack religion. If some aspects of someone's religion does not conflict with reality, we have absolutely no problem with those aspects. Bongolian (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
RationalWiki needs to use the maintain neutrality for all religions. According to this page, caste system was also practiced by Christians as well.Thus deliberately taking away the burden once plagued the Hindu society. Sati was condoned from Rig Veda through Puranas. No mention of it. § — Unsigned, by: Mannyboy2015 / talk / contribs

Expanding to talk about Caste, Sati, Devadasi,[edit]

Hi my friends,

I would like to expand the article by adding sections for caste system, Sati, Devadasi, slavery, and many more in Hinduism. This article is comparing the religious doctrine of caste system to "discrimination of Dalit Christians". Why are we talking about a cultural issue, when we are talking about religious doctrine? Comparing the religious doctrine of Caste system in Hinduism to some isolated incidents among Dalit Christians shows the bias. Caste system was the central tenant of Hinduism right from its inception. — Unsigned, by: Mannyboy2015 / talk / contribs

Sure, that's fine. If your edits are really bad I might undo them though. — Dysk (contribs) 20:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
My edits are bad? My friend, please refrain from the bias. Caste system according to Wiki is just a cultural myth. May I know why? Hindu Scriptures are filled with caste discrimination. Have the editors ever cross checked anything? — Unsigned, by: Mannyboy2015 / talk / contribs
Was it you that sent me all those long emails saying Hindu terrorism didn't exist? :p — Dysk (contribs) 17:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't. But may I know why there is a bias in here towards Hinduism? They also removed my edits with Sati. Sati is condoned from Rig Veda to Puranas to Brahmanas. — Unsigned, by: Mannyboy2015 / talk / contribs
I quote now from your edit "But Vedic seers sanctioned death penalty for unbelievers. Atharva Veda 12.5.62 “Rend, rend to bits, rend through and through, scorch and consume and burn to dust, the one who rejects the Vedas” Atharva Veda 12.5.52 Rend, rend to pieces, rend away, destroy, destroy him utterly. Destroy Angirasi! the wretch who robs and wrongs the Brahmans, born. The Arya Samaj commentary states that a, ‘Man [Brahmin] should satisfy himself by killing his enemies with the miraculous powers given by God’. Atharva Veda 11.2.21 Do not covet our cattle, our men, our goats and sheep! Bend thy course elsewhere, O strong god (ugra), slay the offspring of the blasphemers! " Ok, so that's advocating murder. Same thing Christians and Muslims who take their little book of fiction too seriously are for. Normal sane people are kind of opposed to murder. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean "normal sane people?" Then why was human sacrifice done in some ancient cultures including Hinduism? Do we need to bring other religions here?
"The caste rules not only apply to Hindus but they are observed by Christians as well." What's with this nonsense? Who told you this? Caste system was the gist of Hinduism and now you are unnecessarily dragging other religions here? This is pro-Hindu or what??§ — Unsigned, by: Mannyboy2015 / talk / contribs
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Human sacrifice was a practice performed by primitives who didn't know any better. In the modern era, we know better. Hence, any religious mandate to harm others is nothing more than murder. As for this site being "pro-Hindu" I think you'll find that this site is critical of most if not all religions. As for "normal sane people", that would be those who don't follow orders to harm others merely because an authority claims an invisible character (who may as well be fictional) said to do so. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, human/infant sacrifice is still practiced in some Hindu temples just to let you know.Mannyboy2015 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
First, citations? Second, if true such things would go on the list of things that are both primitive and immoral in Hindu culture, alongside the caste system and the oppression of women, to name a few examples. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Although a blog,, has all verses and citations for anything and everything in Hinduism. Been very useful for me. All the verses cited in the blog are authentic from Hindu scholars and not whitewashed Western versions.Mannyboy2015 (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a better source? Preferably one that isn't from a wannabe hate site? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
In terms of what? Caste system:
Sati-,,, female infanticide in Hindu communties-, Human Sacrifice-,Mannyboy2015 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So... Here's the thing, Your source for the claim of human sacrifice is a book written in 1852, by British authors, who at that time weren't exactly the most reliable of sources concerning the cultures who's countries they (the British) were then occupying. As thus the claim has been rejected at this time. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this a joke?
  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
  4. . — Unsigned, by: Mannyboy2015 / talk / contribs
You made a claim and presented poor evidence, what did you think would happen? Further, what exactly is your goal here? Your opinion seems to be all over the map. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, I think this seems more like Hindu apologetics. Why isnt' the neutrality applicable for Hinduism? Please also see the Strange World of Human Sacrifice by Jan.N.Bremmer. §— Unsigned, by: Mannyboy2015 / talk / contribs

Also, under the caste system section, why are you bringing any other groups/cultures here? Aren't we discussing religious doctrines here? — Unsigned, by: Mannyboy2015 / talk / contribs
If you don't start signing your posts on talk pages, I'm gonna have to block you for certain amount of time. It's getting annoying having to mark everything you write as unsigned. This was a fair warning. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 00:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that. If you could go through the heavy biasing shown here, that would be much better. The current paragraph seems to be make the case that caste discrimination was more like a political problem than a religious problem.Any 13 year old boy from India knows the caste system from Hindu texts might have influenced other communities as well. I am not sure why Western minds don't have the common sense about other cultures.Mannyboy2015 (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Caste system and Christians. Seriously??[edit]

Is this a desperate attempt to whitewash the caste system in Hinduism? Just because some Dalit Christians experienced some harassment, doesn't mean Hindu caste system was isolated. Seems desperate attempt to whitewash Hindu caste discrimination. I can pull in plenty of verses from Hindu Vedas and Puranas to show caste system. Request you to avoid such cheap tactics. The reference cited is laughable. Thanks.Mannyboy2015 (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

JAQing off. Also no one's denying that the Hindu Caste System was isolated, but Christians are sometimes attacked in India because they distance themselves from Hinduism and its associated caste systems. Oxyaena Harass 02:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me? That doesn't make any sense. The current paragraph seems to lighten the caste discrimination in Hinduism. I am an Indian myself. This seems to be a joke. The current paragraph seems to be desperately defending Hinduism off the burden of their past and (present to an extent) Mannyboy2015 (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Dawkins quote[edit]

We can do better than a fucking Dawkins quote, this one from Sagan is a good one:

A millennium before Europeans were willing to divest themselves of the Biblical idea that the world was a few thousand years old, the Mayans were thinking of millions and the Hindus billions.

This isn't 2011, we can do better than this. Oxyaena Harass 17:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena You can go ahead and replace it. I just chose the Dawkins quote because it introduces the poly/mono/pan-theistic question. Also, forgive my ignorance, but why are you so vehemently against Dawkins? Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 19:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Dawkins is a bigoted piece of shit. Oxyaena Harass 20:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)