Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:34, 17 October 2006

Hinduism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

monotheistic faith ...? -suggestion

Shaivism certainly IS a monotheistic faith. However, even though there are many forms of monotheism, the very widespread judeo-christian culture is familiar with only one. As Shaivism is strongly more of the Panentheism and Monistic Theism types, perhaps the affirmation of the monotheistic nature of Shaivism should be expanded to avoid misinformation, as Shaivism acknowledges many gods and the common understanding of monotheism erroneously implies only one god and one manifestation. --Subramanian 18:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

from Sh to Ś

internal article going from Sh to Ś as voted here at the village pump. As for the title, see below:

The link does not link to a discussion Philip Baird Shearer 09:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Shaivism → Śaivism – the proposed name is the official IAST transliteration. Sh was used mostly back when English texts did not have the support of such special characters. The problem is, Śaivism already exists, basically with the same text. Subramanian 16:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose. diacritics such as these are not usually used in English. Philip Baird Shearer 09:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is an encyclopedia, so we go for what is accurate and official, not for what is usually used. Furthermore, people typing Shaivism or Saivism will be redirected to the right place.
• Oppose the move; Shiva and Shaivism are well accepted in English, and are accurate, in the sense that the English spelling is both phonetic and allows for an easily understood pronunciation. Diacritics aren't necessary to indicate an sh sound, and will probably just confuse folks unnecessarily. Articles should be merged at Shaivism.Tom Radulovich 17:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hinduism Today, the widest publication on Hinduism and a strong speaker for the Hindu community, uses Ś. -- Subramanian

• Oppose. Use most common name in English. Agree with comments above. Jonathunder 14:29, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

Vote result

In line with the WP:RM guidelines, after 5 days there was no rought consensus to move the page Philip Baird Shearer 06:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

This article needs a Merged not moved see Misplaced Pages:Duplicate articles Philip Baird Shearer 09:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Śaivism. --goethean ॐ 16:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Śaivism. -- Subramanian 17:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Indeed, the merged article should be at Śaivism. The consistent use of diacritics in foreign names and words, even when alternative English transliterations are available, has become the preferred practice throughout Misplaced Pages (as in Gdańsk, café, Götz von Berlichingen, etc.) Mkweise 19:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not the place to vote on a merge. As the vote for the move is not to move it then one can not bypass that by voting in the discussion section. WP:UE is quite clear, use the most common name in English which is Shaivism not Śaivism. Philip Baird Shearer 06:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction and clearness

There are quite a few direct contradictions in this short (relatively) article.

I.e.: "Saivism had been in conflict with Vaishnavism, another sect of Hinduism, in the past. In spite of several efforts by well-meaning kings and saints, the cold war between the two still continues." vs "The presence of the different schools within Hinduism should not be viewed as a schism. On the contrary, there is no animosity between the schools." War vs no animosity?

Despite my education and general intellectual agility, I find this article to be barely comprehensible.

--217.153.176.154 14:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge

As no one else has done the merge since I suggested it a week ago I have done it. I looked through the history of the pages: the contents of the Śaivism page was a cut and past copy of this page (Shaivism) made by user:Subramanian on 08:00, 7 May 2005. Since that time there have been a few changes to both pages. So I have taken the changes made on the Śaivism page and applied thme to this page. I have made the Śaivism a redirect as it was before the cut and past copy. Philip Baird Shearer 06:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Agastya & Tamil Language

"Agastya, who is said to brought Vedic traditions as well as the Tamil language." Agastya brought the Tamil Language to Tamils!!!!. This is the most ridiculous myth i ever heard from the pile of ever so growing fabrication of Indian hisory.

Myth

Yes, the above is a myth and not history.

Denominations.

Denominations and sects are inappropriate terms for Hinduism, although these terms are commonly used by both academic and traditional scholars. These terms were developed to describe the various manifestations of Christianity, which is viewed, more or less, as a single religion. Hinduism is NOT a single religion. It is a conglomeration of separate religions. Therefore, Shaivism, Vaishnavism, etc, are neither denominations nor sects; they are distinct "Hindu" religions.

Denomination of Sects and Religion

Denomination is only a technical term for Name. Does Christianity really own the term “Denomination”? Sect is only an abbreviation of Section, and the term is convenient and generally understood. Why should the sub-divisions of Hinduism not be regarded as Sects of the Hindu Religion? If Christianity is “more or less” a single Religion, then Hinduism is surely comprised of many distinct “Religions”; but all of the Hindu “Religions” form a coherent whole. What is the correct term for an organized mass of Religions? If Christianity is a Religion, then Hinduism is a “Super Religion”. The term “conglomeration” suggests something arbitrary or forced. Since Shaivism and Vaishnavism both accept the same Brahman as their One God (albeit under different names), and share the same Vedas as their primary scripture, it seems foolish to insist that Shaivism and Vaishnavism are separate Religions in the common understanding of the word. Indeed, it is dangerously divisive to promote such a marked distinction of what are only traditional sections or “Sects” of just one diverse but fully unified “Religion”. Why should Hinduism NOT be regarded as a single Religion? And remember that Shaivism actually transcends the distinction of Hindu Dharma and Mahayana Bauddha Dharma. Sarabhanga 06:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sarabhanga and say that both terms, denomination and sect, are acceptable terms within Hinduism. While the various sects of Hinduism observe many differing beliefs and practices, there are a sufficient number of common, underlying beliefs and factors that certainly make the many religions of Hinduism one in a broader sense. It's helpful to understand the modern term Hinduism in this broad perspective. See Hinduism Today's concise analysis of the Four Sects of Hinduism and the Nine Beliefs of Hinduism. --Japendranatha 05:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

'Sect,' as used within the discussion of religion, is not an abbreviation of 'section' (Latin secta vs. sectio/secare), and applying both 'sect' and 'denomination' to Hinduism brings a lot of unintentional meaning. For the average English speaker, 'sect' has connotations of dissent and sharing a core belief structure, which may or may not be accurate in the discussion of various groups within Hinduism. Sarabhanga seems to be compensating for a perceived attack of credibility on Hinduism as a Rreligion; the discussion of terminology is not an issue of credibility, but an issue of terminology from other religions connoting unintended meanings. --67.100.222.108 19:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with Dhuni Article

Hello, I tried by myself to create a dhuni stub, but don't know much about it. I am not sure if it is Zoroastrian or Hindu as it appears to be practiced throughout India in many faiths. Would someone knowledgable on this subject please help to expand that stub and make needed corrections? Thank you. Chris 02:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Shiva in buddhism?

text mentiones that some buddhist practice devotion to Shiva. Could someone then explan the role of Shiva in buddhism? Or was it supposed to mean that some buddhists, alongiside practicing buddhism, also practice devotion to Shiva? --Aryah 03:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about it, but it seems like the sort of thing that would come up in tantric Buddhism. There is also a certain degree of deva veneration in Buddhism (see Buddhist cosmology), but I've never heard Shiva mentioned in that context. Sorry I don't know much about this, but there are a couple ideas to start with, in case you weren't already on top of them.—Nat Krause 03:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be really suprised if there was anything Shiva-related in vajrayana. On http://www.himalayanart.org/search/painting_form.cfm?heritageid=1&disciplineid=1 there are only two thangkas of Shiva, from Nepal, categorised as Hindu-deity, in a sea of tantric deities. Most buddhist tantrism has little to do with hindu tantra, and quite a longer history... Youre right, hes mentioned in buddhist cosmology. Im just suprised that there is any custom of deva veneration, but that could be the case, thx for the clue! --Aryah 06:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Ive found an answer to my question - posting here if anyone else found this statement of the article as inprecise as I did: " Tibetans accept Ganapatti as a wealth deity, and in general, Buddhists are permitted to practice Hindu tantric deities as long as it is understood they are strictly mundane, and that their objects, like Laxsmi, are not proper objects of refuge.

It is true that in Buddhism, Shiva is considered to have been liberated by Vajradhara in the form of Cakrasamvara, but it is not permissible for Buddhists to take refuge in Shiva in his form as Shiva.

Further, it is considered in some places that Shiva is a manifestation of Avalokiteshvara, but here one does not take refuge in Shiva directly, since Shiva is the worldly manifestation of Avalokiteshvara." http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=11384&view=findpost&p=152197 --Aryah 22:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

BKWSU

I am afraid that this might raise controversies, and rightly so, but should here be mention of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University in this topic on Shiva/Shiavism as hey call their god Shiva as well? Perhaps in the see also category? It is fairly unique for a New Religious Movement to identify Shiva as God. Thank you. 195.82.106.244 00:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed Hinduism articles
• Unknown-importance Hinduism articles