From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hinduism page.

If anyone know more Quotes, Plz add.

  • This page is huge it needs some help--Seadog.M.S 23:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
you can add more from philosophers like Schopenhauer, Voltaire, Max Muller and many more German philosophers and make it a much longer page. But there are two problems: first there are many people who would not be able to digest such an extraordinary praise of Hinduism. So they will say that these are unsourced even if you give book-name and page number of the book. You will have to scan the image of the referred page and title cover of the book:-). Even that may not be enough, they will then say that the article has become too long, you can keep the 25 best quotes you like. You will sure end up in lot of trouble by quoting these big people in praise of Hinduism.

Hinduism is polytheistic[edit]

Apples and oranges are one and the same because they are fruits?!! Yes, there is a godly power of Brahman that is one which plays the role of our "fruit."

Still, one has Ganesh, Ram, Hanuman, and many other gods.--Inesculent 15:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the introduction of the article to the one currently used at Wikipedia. The previous 2 introductions had labeled Hinduism as monistic and then polytheistic, and both labels are incorrect when applied as definitive statements.
Personally, I avoid labeling any person or group as primarily polytheistic, montheistic or atheistic unless they clearly embrace such designations themselves, and even then I often remain reserved in my own opinions. Many of the distinctions and assumptions people are prone to make based upon such labels are often far more illusory than real.
Though there are diverse strands of mystical and devotional traditions in all major religions, "Hinduism" far more than most is manifestly a "big-tent" label. To characterize many followers of Vedanta and some other largely monistic, agnostic or even ultimately atheistic traditions within the Hindu fold as fundamentally polytheistic, merely because many might accept the notion of multiple "devas" or "gods" at work within reality, is rather simplistic in it semantic presumptions; it is in many ways akin to simply designating any traditional Muslim, Christian, or Jew as fundamentally polytheistic if they believe in such lower orders of "supernatural" beings such as those which are called "angels" "demons" and "djinn", or perhaps even more similarly, any trinitarian Christian who endorses some of the ideas of 3 "persons" composing one Godhead. The fundamental ambiguity in the way people attach the same words to different meanings and similar meanings to various words make the significance and worth of many assertions and designations very malleable and ambiguous. What concepts "person", "god", "devas" and such words indicate are often extremely variable, even among nominal co-adherents of particular creeds.
I am well aware of the diverse and simplistic assumptions that many people make when using particular labels and words, thus I myself am rarely resentful of what I perceive to be largely false or flawed assumptions at work, but it still can be very frustrating when so many people are prone to think of their own use of words and expressions as absolutely correct and well thought out because they are comfortable with their own definitions and assumptions, and all other uses (by others similarly comfortable with their own definitions and assumptions) as absolutely wrong and foolish.
Words are often necessary and vitally important tools of communication; they are rarely if ever absolutely perfect, incorruptible and totally reliable tools, no matter how sufficient they may seem, or even indispensable they may sometimes be. ~ Kalki 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So "There are no facts, only interpretations"?

Jesus of Nazareth is thought by some Christians to be a different manifestation of an ultimate being called Jehovah. Jehovah is a not an ethereal force but a being. What invisible being--not some force or permeant--are Ganesh, Rama, and Hanuman manifestations of? Even Ishvara is a "philosophical concept."--Inesculent 02:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


My investigation has revealed that Ishvara is an idol of the god Shiva. It highly doubt the accuracy of the Ishvara article at Wikipedia; I, further, recant that Ishvara is a "philosophical concept." I suspect certain Islamic people with an unrepentant and let-me-grab-your-collar-and-sock-you-because-there-is-nothing-in-this-world-except-monotheism attitude have hijacked and distorted some articles on Hinduism.--Inesculent 23:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed "further reading" related entry[edit]

Removed entry related to "further reading", per community consensus as expressed at Wikiquote:Village Pump. -- Cirt (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)