Talk:Karma in Hinduism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Karma in Hinduism was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
WikiProject Hinduism / Philosophy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Hindu philosophy (marked as High-importance).
 

Suggestions[edit]

  • Page numbers missing in ref 1, 4 etc.
  • In The role of divine forces, can the long headings be shortened, like Samkya view, Vedanta view?
  • Use {{citeweb}} for formatting web ref (bare urls) like http://www.shaivam.org/hipkarma.htm
  • Vedanta's refutations and A Supreme God is ultimately the enforcer of karma but humans have the free will to choose good or evil - need to be merged as present similar ideas
  • Gita interpretations and role of Guru uses the WP:PRIMARY source (Verses 4:14, 9.22 and 18.61) as ref, specify specific book which interprets the verses like that.

--Redtigerxyz Talk 03:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that simplifying may be better, but for a third party with no exposure to Hinduism, it's probably easier summarizing the main idea, than characterizing it as a Vedanta view. Raj2004 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC) ____

The section titles, the lengthy ones should be shortened. For Ex : "Neither supreme God nor does lesser divinities exist; rituals alone yield the fruits of karma" can be changed to "Views by Mimamsakas", and in the text of this section, the contents of the title can be paraphrased as "According to Mimamsakas, Neither supreme God nor does lesser divinities ..." The section "The role of divine forces" needs to be worked out on this front. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Transmigration in older Vedic texts[edit]

Apropos of this edit. I'm somewhat dismayed by the reference: I really thought Yuvraj Krishan was a more careful scholar. But here he is clearly cherry-picking. Worse, he is ignoring the literature on the subject, and that too after actually citing some authors, specifically Keith and Oldenberg.

  • Krishan cites Keith's The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads (full text at archive.org, Vol 1 and Vol 2) in this chapter, but quite remarkably says nothing about the discussion on p. 570ff. (in Vol 2), where among other verses, 1.164.30 and 1.164.38 in particular are treated. Sample:

    The references to transmigration which have been seen in the Rigveda are all of the most improbable character: it is to ignore the nature of poetry to press the wish that there may be long life for man among the gods into the view that it contemplates rebirth: the attempt to find references to it in two of the verses of the riddle hymn of Dirghatamas is bold, but not very plausible: the allusion, in which Vasistha is made to refer to his previous birth, is quite impossible, and the same criticism can be applied in every other case. The effort to find such views is naturally not modern merely : the commentaries on the Upanisads themselves seek to trace the idea, and the fact that they can adduce nothing worthy of consideration is surely conclusive proof that there was nothing.

  • Krishan also cites Keith's Rigveda Brahmanas (full text) for AB.2.8, but again fails to take note of Keith's introduction, p.44:

    (e) Absence of reference to Metempsychosis.
    Again the two texts are free of all reference to metempsychosis in any form. This fact is significant and legitimately may be taken as placing them before the period of the Buddha and probably not later than 600 B.C. The Kauṣitāki, however, is rather the younger in its philosophic aspect, as it does contain the concept, punarmṛtyu (xxv. 1).

In short, Krishan's signal failure to address the views in prior literature means that he is not stating an academic consensus (as would be appropriate for a citation, especially in the lede) but merely his own opinion. However, I'm quite aware that not a few editors would dearly like to find transmigration in the Rgveda, so I'm going to let the edit stand for a while, if only to see who wants to defend it. rudra (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Copying of this Wikipedia article from an Indian publisher[edit]

Professor Pandey in his book, Encylopedia of Indian Philosophy, appeared to take excerpts from the Wikipedia article and pasted it in his book; I was checking Google Books and note that whole excerpts from the wikipedia article on Karma in Hinduism were published in Vraj Kumar Pandey 's Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophy, pg. 33 See, http://books.google.com/books?cd=1&q=swami+sivananda+karma+vraj+kumar+pandey&btnG=Search+Books I don't know if Mr Pandey acknowledge in a footnote in his book, Wikipedia?

I changed one of the references to Thirugnana Sambanthar in the current article, since the referenced 2004 web link was dead, and Mr. Pandey seemed to have copied the Wikipedia article anyway. Indeed, the earliest versions of the article with reference to Swami Sivananda, with reference to karma was made in 2004 way prior to the 2007 publication of Professor Pandey: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Hinduism&oldid=8711064 I hope that he referenced Wikipedia. The Google snippet was a limited preview so I don't know whether he referenced wikipedia.

The publisher is Anmol Publications. Raj2004 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I e-mailed the publisher. They acknowledged this mistake by stating, "Respected sir we deeply regret that your name didn't come in book references.this was part of a mistake done by our research team.we will definately add your name in next edition. thanking u for informing our mistake." Raj2004 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Karma in Hinduism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:SpacemanSpiff 08:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    In many parts, the article reads like a sermon, e.g. "The Vedas tell us that if we sow goodness, we will reap goodness; if we sow evil, we will reap evil." A rewrite is required to change the tone of the article, and also to improve the continuity and flow.
    B. MoS compliance:
    Sections have to be rearranged in a more topical fashion to improve flow, section titles also need work. Referencing style is inconsistent with templated links in some places, titled links in some, and bare links in other places. The lead is also too short and is not a summary of the article.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Sources are included, but I have concerns on source quality and interpretation.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    For a topic such as this, scholarly sources are available and providing a full quote of one line in an article as a summary for Srikantha's view on Karma isn't necessary or appropriate. Also, source concerns exist with others, e.g. 77, 12, etc.
    C. No original research:
    Ref 82 (page 10) doesn't even mention Yama but it is used as a cite for that text. I'm also unable to find this book on Worldcat or Amazon. In other areas, opinions of writers are provided as fact.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Level 3 titles follow level 2 without any explanation. e.g. Shaivism section lists the views of three seers, but it lacks information on what Shaivist philosophy is or why these three seers represent Shaivism. The article consists of various clusters of information, but the linkage is missing and therefore the breadth of coverage is not apparent.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Only one image, could possibly use a couple more
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The article has the potential to be brought up to GA standards, however, the opportunities for improvement identified above will have to be addressed. I expect this to take some time and effort and am therefore not placing the nomination on hold. Once these concerns are addressed, I would suggest a peer review and then a renomination at WP:GANSpacemanSpiff 09:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Shaivism is a branch of Hinduism that mentions Shiva as the supreme God; reference 82 mentions Yama as Yamaraj. Srikanta's views on karma are important and not mentioned in your citation. Raj2004 (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The article does read like sermon sometimes, because it is a religious topic and it is partially built from sermons given by those who are considered an authority on the subject. It is not possible to completely avoid that without loosing some information, especially when it is not clear how to understand some explanations in the first place. There are priests studying Bible for 2000 years and what is the meaning of some sections is still questioned. Now, how can you change the style, if you can not be sure, what the meaning is? I think that choosing the lowest common denominator, the man with the slowest mind and least understanding, as the reference of interpretation would not be a good idea. Atmapuri (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://coachgray.blogspot.com/2009/08/laws-of-karma-and-samsara.html. (Other sources may be involved as well; this was discovered through a contributor copyright investigation.) Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)