From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

If anyone know more Quotes, Plz add.

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Unsourced or inadequately sourced[edit]

  • The invisible excludes nothing, the invisible that excludes nothing is the infinite – the soul of India is the infinite.
  • Philosophers tell us that the Indians were the first ones to conceive of a true infinite from which nothing is excluded. The West shied away from this notion. The West likes form, boundaries that distinguish and demarcate. The trouble is that boundaries also imprison – they restrict and confine.
  • India saw this clearly and turned her face to that which has no boundary or whatever.India anchored her soul in the infinite seeing the things of the world as masks of the infinite assumes – there can be no end to these masks, of course. If they express a true infinity. And It is here that India’s mind boggling variety links up to her infinite soul.
  • India includes so much because her soul being infinite excludes nothing.” It goes without saying that the universe that India saw emerging from the infinite was stupendous.”
  • While the West was still thinking, perhaps, of 6,000 years old universe – India was already envisioning ages and eons and galaxies as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. The Universe so vast that modern astronomy slips into its folds without a ripple.
  • What extracts from the Vedas I have read fall on me like the light of a higher and purer luminary, which describes a loftier course through purer stratum. It rises on me like the full moon after the stars have come out, wading through some far stratum in the sky.
  • Whenever I have read any part of the Vedas, I have felt that some unearthly and unknown light illuminated me. In the great teaching of the Vedas, there is no touch of sectarianism. It is of all ages, climes and nationalities and is the royal road for the attainment of the Great Knowledge. When I am at it, I feel that I am under the spangled heavens of a summer night.
  • The Vedas contain a sensible account of God.The veneration in which the Vedas are held is itself a remarkable feat. Their code embraced the whole moral life of the Hindus and in such a case there is no other truth than sincerity. Truth is such by reference to the heart of man within, not to any standard without.
  • The Hindus are most serenely and thoughtfully religious than the Hebrews. They have perhaps a purer, more independent and impersonal knowledge of God. Their religious books describes the first inquisitive and contemplative access to God.
  • One sentence of the Bhagavad Gita, is worth the State of Massachusetts many times over.
  • Most books belong to the house and streets only, . . . .But this(Bhagavad Gita) . . . . addresses what is deepest and most abiding in man. . . . Its truth speaks freshly to our experience. [the sentences of Manu] are a piece with depth and serenity and I am sure they will have a place and significance as long as there is a sky to test them by.
  • It is sublime as night and a breathless ocean. It contains every religious sentiment, all the grand ethics which visit in turn each noble poetic mind....
  • The Indian teaching, through its clouds of legends, has yet a simple and grand religion, like a queenly countenance seen through a rich veil. It teaches to speak truth, love others, and to dispose trifles. The East is grand - and makes Europe appear the land of trifles. ...all is soul and the soul is Vishnu .
  • All science is transcendental or else passes away. Botany is now acquiring the right theory - the avatars of Brahman will presently be the text-books of natural history.

My work attributed to someone else[edit]

In 2011, I purchased the domain and wrote a short article on the site (archived copy). I had planned on expanding the site. However, owing to time constraint, I abandoned it. Eight years on, I now see an excerpt from the article attributed to Girilal Jain on this page. The quote in question:

"The tenets of Hinduism are derived mainly from the holiest of scripture, The Bhagavad Gita, or Song Of God. The text is centered around the conversation between the mighty warrior Arjuna, who was torn with grief over the impending battle with his kinsman, and Krshna, a manifestation of the Creator, who revealed Himself to Arjuna on the battle ground of Kuruksetra in 3137 BCE just moments before the fighting commenced. What transpired was an epic discourse on humanity, our place in the universe, the spiritual and societal obligations that each of us shoulders – all framed in a poetic and philosophical style than takes our breath away even now. Numerous sentences, phrases and ideas from the Bhagavad Gita have since found its way into many contemporary and extinct religions, such as Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity and many more."

Obviously, I no longer have control of the domain. However, if it really comes down to it, I can tie the Google Analytics code to my account. But that's besides the point, which is, the quote did not originate from Girilal Jain.

Thank you for this comment. I have removed the quote. --ΞΔΞ (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much appreciated. --Ratha K (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]