Disputatio:Hinduismus

Quae sequuntur e Disputatio:Religio Induica removi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:46, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who knows more about this should probably check whether it is accurate. Someone who knows less should probably check whether it is comprehensible. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 12:09, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this really should just be Religio Indica--no need to invent a word to distinguish "Indian" and "Hindoo," when until recently the two were essentially synonyms. Also, note that the word Brahmin is attested in Greek and Latin literature in various forms, the most famous of which is Brachmanus (the same goes for Śramaṇa, but that's less important). I never wrote a section on Hinduism for Sanctae Scripturae Latine, but I'm pretty sure I saw somethign in Melissa or Vox Latina at some point. :--Iustinus 18:44, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

en:Brahmin, not en:Brahma! If we want to Latinize the latter, it would presumably be *Brachmas

Further comment: in the Greek inscriptions of Piodases (A.K.A. Ashoka), dharma is translated as εὐσέβεια (example), which I suppose implies it's pietas in Latin. At least in some contexts that makes good sense: pietas really means "(social and religious) dutifulness", that which one owes to their family and gods. --Iustinus 19:14, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another addendum: ancient sources universaly speak of the Indians as worshiping Hercules and Bacchus. MOdern sources generally assume that the former is Krisha, and the latter is Siva. The Suda mentions that the Indian name for Hercules is Dorsanes. This is difficult to interpret, and usually assumed to be an error: either there was some sort of confusion with the Arabian Bacchus Dusares, or perhaps it's a scribal error for *Corsanes. --Iustinus 23:41, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very good to have an article on this.

I think I disagree with Iustinus about the name. Religio Indica might be translated as "the Indian religion", whereas, as we know, there are several. Thus, although the words Indian and Hindu are identical in origin, it is useful that we can distinguish them. I would say either Induica or Hinduica would be fine: unfortunately I don't have a precedent to cite.

Since we know a lot more about Hindu religion than the Greeks and Romans did, I don't think we can rely on them for our names. It may often be best to copy over names and technical terms directly from the Sanskrit form, as you have done with karma etc. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:11, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...You have a point there. The Romans had a lot of trouble understanding other religions (just look at how they misunderstood the Aesir: Odin = Mercury!). And the less said about the attidute of mediaeval Latin writers regarding other religions, the better! LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 22:52, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leighvs, what are you basing your assessment of the medaeval attitude concerning religions on? Alexanderr 23:26, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I don't want to get into a big debate about this. My assessment is based on mediaeval history: Inquisitions, Pogroms, Crusades etc. (although I sometimes wonder how much has truly changed since then). I am not criticising writers in particular. The only Latin source I found on Hinduism (admittedly it is just one example, and is renaissance, not mediaeval) had chapters such as "De ridicula Brachmanum Religione circa hominum originem" [1]. If you do know of some mediaeval or renaissance Latin works on religions other than Christianity which are objective and scholarly, where can they be found? They would come in very handy for vicipedia, which is very weak on religion. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 00:18, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't debate it if I wanted to. I'm not too versed in the middle ages, however I wouldn't group all of the middle ages together the way you did. It was as intellectual as religious, and even the Popes spoke out against Pogroms, didn't they? I remember that during the plague the Pope at the time (I can't remember his name...hardly surprising considering the number of Popes throughout history) told people not to attack the Jews. I have the book the Myth of Hitler's Pope, and it goes into Jewish Catholic relations throughout history, so I can check for other examples if you want. Alexanderr 02:11, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to hear. I certainly do not wish to suggest that all people at the time were burning "pagans" and Jews at the stake (that would make me prejudiced), nor were the middle ages the only periods of prejudice in European history (just look at c.1850-1945). But let's face it, they were hardly times of tolerance. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 09:27, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then. It is true that dharma is a technical term, and so perhaps should not be translated. BUt the historical connection to pietas should at least be noted (the Romans perhaps misunderstood Hinduism, but surely Ashoka did not!) Likewise throughout the article, I would suggest that when there is an ancient connection to be made, it should be noted. People who read Latin generally, even if they do not always understand the world through the filter of ancient literature, at least tend to be highly interested in such things. And I think your criticism of the Roman understanding of Germanic religion is unwarranted: OUR understanding is strongly filtered by the Norse sagas written down nearly a millenium later. It is usually understood that in Roman times, Tyr was the true head of the pantheon, and Odinn was more a god of magic. I'm sure scholars of this subject could adduce more details for or against this theory from other germanic sources that survive. --Iustinus 18:05, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I agree that we need to make connections with Greek and Roman names and knowledge wherever we can. This is one thing that Vicipaedia ought to do much better than any "rivals"! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:14, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would pietas get across the idea of dharma? Having looked on the page on en:wiki, it seems that the term is almost untranslatable (λογος or maybe the Biblical sense of κοσμος would be nearer...), perhaps he just made a compromise with the translation. Yes, I think the article could do with a section on the historical development of the religion, and dharma should have an article of its own. I only created this article to get rid of a red link, now I am doing wider reading; hurrah for Vicipedia! Iustine, you may well be right about Tyr, I have just noticed the etymological connection to the PIE *deywos, and therefore Zeus, Iuppiter and Hinduism's very own Devas. Perhaps I should stop going to lectures and tutorials and edit vicipedia all day. I am learning so much... LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 22:54, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a compromise: the word he used for it in Aramaic means "truth." But keep in mind that pietas really does mean something close to dharma in at least some of its senses. As for the Aramaic... I guess "truth" is also one of the meanings of Dharma, and even more interesting, the Egyptian word usually transliterated as "Maat" literally means "truth" or "order", and seems to mean something very close to dharma as well. --Iustinus 00:46, 16 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finis textus a me moti. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:46, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dharma-h vs. religio[fontem recensere]

Sanscritice "dharma-h" non est "religio", sed et "natura" et "mos"; "hindû" verbum persicum est, quod "Indus" significat. Igitur Indiae homines ante regnum Britanniorum nesciebant se quandam "religionem Hinduicam" habere. Se putabant "morem naturalem aeternam" (sanâtanam dharmam) sequi vel simpliciter quosdam deos colere. Conceptum "religionis" missionariis Christianis discebant, ut eis responderent.

Declinatio verborum Sanskritorum in linguâ Latinâ?[fontem recensere]

Pluralis "vedae"-ne iustum est? Verbum Sanskriticum veda-h masculinum est, cum terminatione -ah qui ad terminationem Latinam -us, -i correspondet: Latine -us, -a, -um = Sanskritice -ah, -âh, -am.

Scripturae sacrae Hinduismi[fontem recensere]

"Vedae" scripturae sacrae Hinduismi SUNT sed non ut Biblia Sacra: sunt preces deorum antiquorum, quis nonnullis homines utentur; sed hodie veneratissimi dei (Vishnus [-ûs], Shivas, Magna Dea, Ganeshas) in Veda non vel pauce apparent, et dei antiqui hodie vel non venerantur vel dei naturales sunt ut Indras, deus imbris. Totalitas scripturarum sacrarum Hinduismi "shrûtî" nominatur, id est "audita": veteres putabant preces et doctrinas sacras in mundo ESSE et viro sancto audiri posse. Shrutis (-is f.) consistit: - vedîs,
- brahmanis (brahmana-h, non brâhmana-h = sacerdos), id sunt regulae sacrificiis veteris,
- upanishadibus (upa-ni-shad = ad-ab-sedere = "assessio" [cum philosopho magistro]), in quo ex speculationibus de sacrificio philosophia identitatis animae personae cum animae mundi (vel cum Deo Unico) evolvitur,
- Manusmriti, id est codex moralis.

Sed pro devotione hominum libri "traditionis" (smritî, -is f.) shrutî magis valent: id sunt 18 libri Puranae ("Veteres"), in quis acta Deorum narrantur, et duo epoi magnae "Ramâyanas" et "Mahabharâtas", qui etiam acta deorum et heroum narrantur.

curryfranke141.13.21.125 23:11, 22 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contribui[fontem recensere]

Paginas Hinduismus et Religio Induica contribuendas contribui! Sed de optimo titulo nescio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:48, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De nomine (rursus)[fontem recensere]

Inter "Hinduismus" et "Categoria:Induismus" (Hi- et I-) dubitavimus. Nomen Sanscriticum est "Hindūdharma" (religio Hindu), et in linguis subcontinentis hodiernis haud dissimiliter. Igitur propono Hi- (etc.) apud nos praeferendum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:56, 13 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Systema brahmanicum, liturgicum mythologicum civile ex monumentis indicis musei Borgiani velitris dissertationibus historico-criticis [fontem recensere]

http://books.google.com/books?id=LyoVAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (disputatio) 22:09, 30 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]