User talk:Aupmanyav

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, Aupmanyav, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  (I am much surprised! No one even bothered to welcome you!!) --Andy123 11:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You have compensated for it.

Aupmanyav 12:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dietary Habits and Doctrines (Citations)[edit]

'Dietary Habits and Doctrines See also: Vegetarianism, Vegan, Cuisine of India, and Jainism

Vegetarianism is not as common amongst Hindus as is thought in the West. While 82% of the population of India is Hindu, only about 20% is vegetarian. Vegetarianism is recommended for its sattvic qualities. Most Hindus abstain from Beef while others refrain from meat on holy days. [citations needed]'

I would suggest that the remark 'citations needed' should be removed, because you would not find them in scriptures. This is hinduism as is practiced (like the British constitution). I am a non-vegetarian but we do not eat non-vegetarian food on Tuesdays, birth anniversaries, and holidays. Among the Kashmiri Brahmins (the community to which I belong), non-vegetarian food was esstential on some holidays (Shivaratri), we have now abandoned the practice. We relish non-vegetarian food, but as people grow old, they tend to discard the practice. Aupmanyav 04:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism WikiProject[edit]

I've seen that you've made useful contributions Hinduism related articles on Wikipedia. Here we have a project where Wikipedians discuss and improve Hinduism-related articles together. You may consider joining. Thanks GizzaChat © 06:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello and welcome. May I request you to have a look at the Hindu article and especially its talk page. Thanks!! Rohitbd 11:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply to "Want to Help" on my userpage[edit]

I personally have the Aryan/Vedic beliefs and that the Aryans came from Central Asia and settled into India, so I might not be the right person to look into this matter. However, if you can source and cite your edits with appropriate discussions on the talk page (read WP:CITE and WP:NOR policies of Wikipedia) of the relevant articles, things might work out for you. The other thing that you might do is, refer to the Arbitration Committee. --Andy123 12:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism Page[edit]

Hi, I see you're new, welcome to Wikipedia! I think your background as a Kashmiri Brahmin will help make the Hindu perspective more rounded. I see also that you have very strong point of views, I would recommend considering npov, Wikipedia:Citing sources as you edit some articles. I have biases as well and try to keep my edits npov.

Meanwhile, I will attempt to answer some of your discussion: While a person is free to change denomination, and while not forced within a denomination, it is not the norm to worship dieties outside the denom - just as protestant Christians may be born in one denomination but can change freely (I may be speaking outside my knowledge here). (btw, I have met many north indians professing to Vaishnavism too). I think atleast the intro should reflect unifying aspect of the religion rather than dividing. The page also clarifies the unifying aspects of Dharma, Karma etc under core concpets section. A better place to put the verbiage may be in the denominations section with 'In fact, many Hindus will not claim to belong to any denomination at all, and consider belief about what God/Gods to worship a personal matter' or perhaps under 'Nature of God'.

My understanding is that Buddhism rejects the Vedas and hence do fall under the vedic tradtion/sanatana dharma a.k.a hinduism. Most of your examples of non-rejection of any ideas speak to the tolerance of Hinduism to other ideas but not to acceptance. There are likewise many such examples in other religions - see in Buddhism Especially in the West, many people who are devoutly Buddhist may also consider themselves as Christian, Muslim or Jewish, or belonging to some other religious group.

When I mention scriptures I mean mainly, the Mahabharata, Ramayana, Vedas, Upanishads, and Gita. Major philosophies and figures in the religion are refuted by refering to these scriptures. You are digressing into social issues not core ideology or dieties worshipped. I agree that Hinduism is not static but there was strong tradition of debates etc among scholars and most major philosophies are attempted to be proven with scriptural support. Again, not a free for all.

Hinduism is a bit amorphous and with so many different ideologies, it is hard to reach common ground. You say, 'the intro carries is restrictive and insufficient. It belittles Hinduism. It promotes fractitiousness. ' While there may be a few contentious issues in it I don't think it deserves the condemnation you give it. Perhaps we can work within the existing framework to get acceptable wording on the problem sentences. Also keep in mind, the structure of the page has been arrived after much deliberation and change, with contributing editors from different points of views. Also, the intro was kept brief and generalized to accomodate many points of views. All differences are attempted to be tackled in the subtopics. --Pranathi 03:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism changes[edit]

For most part, I do not disagree with you at all. I am also leaning towards Advaita Vedanta—but Advaitism certainly does not mean atheism!!!!!! The edits you made were removed because they were unencyclopedic. Thats not the way to write in an encyclopedia. Introduction has to be short, and pertaining to what "most Hindus" will believe . You were trying to club up your own views in the introductory para. Whatever you had mentioned was essentially explained in the subsequent sections-so whats the need of repitition? Certainly Hinduism is an evolving series of thoughts--and such things have been given due mention. I also know that generalized Hinduism includes Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism and tribal animism. But here we are to discuss only mainstream Hinduism , ie, only that Hinduism which stems from the Vedic tradition. Otherwise in such an already long article, we'd have to make Hinduism worth 100 pages. And nowhere have I said that Hinduism sprang into existance on 3102 BCE or such nasty dates. The date given were those as agreed upon by historians - c 4000 yrs ago. And as for your astrology, not everyone believes in it. And as for atheism, it is also mentioned in the section on etymology.

And the theory of Buddhavatara is not very wonderful. The Puranas say that Vishnu took Buddhavatar to "spread lies" and false teachings among the asuras so that they maybe mislead and won over by the demigods. This is offensive and exactly the opposite of the Buddhist views of Buddha : the Buddhist do not consider Buddh tobe any god or avatar; but they believe his teachings to be true and moral. Remember, we agree that Hindus may have any belief or disbelief, but we do need to make certain generalized statements for the article.

If you wish, you could visit the page on Advaita Vedanta, mostly made by me. Cygnus_hansa 14:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hindu talk page[edit]

As asked by you I am contesting anti-hindu messages in the page, especially by Social Worker, and I intend to make a mince meat of him. You watch. Please do tell me whether I am doing it well?Aupmanyav 14:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I think you are doing great. To make the kind of comments User:SocialWorker has made, it takes more than just ignorance. Its almost as if s/he has deep-rooted hatred. I strongly suspect this person is a christian (or a fresh convert) or works for some missionary masquerading as a social service organisation. S/he is only using Buddhism, Jainism & Sikhism as a sort of shield to make derogatory comments/changes on Hinduism (which makes sense since this article is open to the world to read and anything in an encyclopedia must be factual), so that no body should give it back to him out of respect for these religions. I would also point out that this person has immense patience to keep arguing, so after a while it would be best to simply ignore him/her. Rohitbd 13:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Social Worker[edit]

Today I have completed replies to all messages by Social Worker on talk: Hindu page. I will reply to any further messages that the worm posts and I am fully capable of doing that. Why is this issue not raised with the Wikipedia and Hindu page managers? When would that be done and what the Wiki rules about it are? Aupmanyav 15:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for taking the effort to counter this guy. I have been following the talk page and I must congratulate you for beating this guy flat. As to why the issue hasn't been raised with admins, I guess the problem is perhaps Hindus who read it do not find anything out of the ordinary, the reason for this (I presume) is that not many have an in-depth knowledge of Hinduism (even I don't claim to have much knowledge). Add to that the usual upbringing (?) which has made most Hindus complacent....i.e., they simply don't care if someone bullshits about Hinduism. Indeed, if you see most Hinduism articles have major inputs from non-Hindus. In my humble opinion, most Hindus have a very negative view about the caste-system - it has been hammered into their heads since childhood that it is made for exploitation, it is discriminatory, etc., in our schools. Nowhere is the purpose or history of it taught properly. As a result all of us have grown up with no clear-cut idea of what it is to be a Hindu - IMHO whatever is taught is through the glasses of non-Hindu mind-set. That said, I did raise the issue with a couple of wikipedians and we have rung the alarm bells regarding socialworker. Also there is no strict rule as to when an admin must be contacted, and I do expect that at some point they may have been informed - but after a while, all the arguing simply gets too long-winded and people lose interest. However the category Indian administrators lists all Indian admins and we can contact one who is a Hindu. I hope for once we can write the article to be "from the horse's mouth" so to speak, instead of some non-Hindu view of what it should be. Thanks once again for taking the time to set things right. Rohitbd 19:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I have notified admins Gurubrahma & Sundar regarding the on-going tiff. Rohitbd 19:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the clarification, Aupmanyav, I knew that Sarva Khalvidam Brahma' meant that(Whole universe is 'Brahman') but I wasn't sure.


Raj2004 02:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You say, that you are an advaitin who believes in 'Sarva Khalvidam Brahma but then say you're an atheist? I am confused?

Raj2004 02:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Yes, Aupmanyav But don't advaiatans recognize a God as Saguna Brahman

Raj2004 02:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism page[edit]

Please visit my various comments and questions on talk:Hinduism page, directed unto you.Cygnus_hansa 07:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Hinduism[edit]

Hinduism is criticized based on past or current regressive social customs such as Casteism, Sati, and Dowry.

What is mentioned in Hindu scriptures is 'Varna'. The system was not be very different from feudalism and other traditions throughout the world, where society was divided in priests, warriors, merchants, and workers. What was radically different was the underlying thought, that happiness does not come by running after material riches. 'Aparigraha' (non-possessiveness) is an important part of all eastern religions. Most people in west who have no definition of success in life other than amassing wealth and will find this idea unintelligible.

The situation in historical times was different in Hindu society. Nobody was so poor as to be starving. It was a self-sufficient society. If a person could serve his parents in their old age, raise his children in his heriditary trade, and remain away from vices, he was supposed to have lived a successful life. Castes did entail some norms to be observed, which were not oppressive in history. Please do not look at Indian society with the colored glasses of nineteenth or twentieth century when the indigenous system was destroyed by colonialism. And note that at one time there was flexibility in the system.

It must also be noted that there is a big element of self-creation in the Caste-system. A brahmin family hailing from Maharashtra with their own tradition, language, food habits; may not like their son or daughter to marry with a girl or a boy from a Kashmiri brahmin family with different tradition, language, and food habits, though they may belong to the same level of social heirarchy. Castes were created by people on basis of their tribal origins, language, region of residence, traditions.

It must be noted that at one time there was flexibility in the system. Where the scriptures had verses supporting caste system, they have equal number of verses affirming the equality of men. It is debatable what was part of the original document and what was interpolated.

If Hinduism includes polytheistic thought and accepts idol worship, I do not know what objections people may have against it. It is our belief. How come belief in one God (which also is accepted by Hinduism) is better than belief in many. Similarly, how come you can have pictures, symbols, stones and pillars; but not idols. And idols were supposed many times to be only a help in focussing attention in God. Hinduism has no reason to apologistic for its polytheism. The most abused is the linga symbol for worship of Shiva. It is a very simple symbol, which anyone, even a child can make with its hands. When we prepare logos for businesses, do we not look for a simple easily reproduceable logo?

Sati was a region specific malpractice at a certain period of time. Its incidence in other regions was very low. Dowry is a current malpractice which has come with materialism. In olden days, a family could give what it could afford and what it would like to their daughter. She was not sent empty-handed and it was not our way to ask for a share from her father's property. The dowry was considered her personal property. The bridegroom's family did not touch it, it was considered below anybodies dignity to covet it. The Indian government has very strict laws against dowry, but the culture of corruption nullifies them. Though media is very strong in India and is doing a commendable job against these malpractices.

Another criticism is directed towards the rise of Hindu nationalism or Hindutva in India. There are various reasons for it. The foremost is christian evangelism. Nobody likes their numbers to be reduced. Another reason is the creation of Pakistan and breaking up of what hindus considered the natural boundaries of India. The muslims were under no threat to their religion or their occupations. Creation of Pakistan caused massacre of hundreds of thousands of Hindus and displacement of millions of them. Hindus question whether independence was fair to them. This was excerbated by the partisan attitude of the Indian National Congress, the ruling party which created favourable laws for muslims but interfered adversely in Hindu laws. You may note that Salman Rushdie's book was banned in India as a threat to public peace but Hussain's naked Saraswati was not. Another fact is that during the muslim rule many temples were destroyed. How do you explain huge mosques exactly at the places which are considered the most pious by Hindus? Some of the Hindus would like a return of these places. You must note that majority of Hindus do not support this action and would let bygone be bygone. Aupmanyav 17:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The majority of Hindus do support Hindutva ("Hinduness"), I think they at least want Ram Janmabhoomi, Kashi Vishwanath, and Krishna Janmabhoomi. As for Somnath, we beat the enemies of India up, and reconquered it from the oppressors.Bakaman Bakatalk 18:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


no, I think you are not too far off; except that there was no concept of Brahman in the contemporary sense. Brahman meant more or less "prayer" or "invocation". But you may well be right that it was by concact with Indian native traditions that it changed its meaning to something deeper or, or from magic to mysticism. But it is difficult do say much about it. Since the change is not in the Rigveda, but it appears to be in the Atharvaveda, it would appear that it went together with the expansion of Vedic culture from the Punjab to the Gangetic plain in the early Iron Age, say 1000 BC, but it is of course possible to disagree about this. dab () 09:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism: The Science[edit]

First of all I will like to state that I agree with most of the Aupmanyav's views.The most beautiful thing about Hinduism is that it is not exclusive, at the same time it do command some very basic principles which demarcate it from other religions.

Hinduism is the most scientific religion in this world. Hinduism supports big bang. Before there was only energy and the closest a man can get to it is 'OM' (The mantra,The sound energy). When you chant 'OM' your inner energy is in close resonance with that devine energy which is forever. Due to this resonance you dissipate maximum power and you get 'purified' from inside. This devine energy gave rise to Shiva(the creator as well as the destroyer) and Shakti(the ultimate 'storehouse' of energy or in other words the devine mother). When Shiva and shakti unified they gave rise to this world. Thus as a basic principle, unlike other religions, Hinduism believe in equality and importance of both male and female. In fact we Hindus worship the 'Mother'. If we have a closer look we worship the male-female union. The Mohini episode, The Krishna ras lila with gaupis and many more supports this point.All the present day furor about 'Sex' being against the culture of India is infact that sex is against the 'present day culture' and not the 'Hindu religion'. By the present day culture I mean the culture that took its shape due to impact of Christian and Muslim invaders who treat women and sex as anti religious from the word go.

Hinduism as a principle supports evolution. And evolution of not only living but nonliving as well. Hinduism requires a Hindu to practice and protect the Dharma(duty,right action). According to Gita karma is the most basic form of Dharma. We must concentrate and practice our karma without thinking of what fruits it will bear. As stated earlier this world is made up of energy. Energy exists in many forms like life,sound,heat etc. Energy can never be created nor be destroyed; It can only be transferred from one form to another. When we die, the energy driving us gets recycled and gets redistributed to millions and millions of living and nonliving things. This is rebirth. Each form of energy has its corresponding characteristic. For example we can distinguish heat energy,sound energy etc. based on these characteristics. Our karma moulds the characteristics of our 'life energy'. When we do 'evil' things our life energy comes in contact with 'negative' energy and when we do 'good' things it comes in contact with 'positive' energy. These contacts gradually reshape the characteristic of our life energy. When it gets redistributed the bearer share these characterstics.In this way our karma helps in evolving. The Hindu belief that all are made up of panchtatva reinforces this idea because ultimately the energy that constitute us is sourced from both living as well as nonliving. (For example living source is the father and the mother while nonliving is the food we eat etc.)

I understand that many of you will not agree with my ideas but your views are always welcome. Even if you do not agree with my ideas, I believe you will agree with the subject "Hinduism: The science".

Can your good self create a precise page on 'Naresh Sonee' & his book 'Brahman Pujan' - 'Brahmaand Pujan' . However, Sonee is the writer of this book ‘Brahmand Pujan’ written in 1999 Since 5-6 yrs, for one or the other reason pages under ‘such names’ are constantly faced by community bias here in wikipedia. Hoewver, Naresh Sonee reflects on google search engine. So, I request Indian community to kindly come forward and generously help these two pages to grow, as I am fed up to fight my case here and moved out long back. Meanwhile, such an important info/issue on ‘Indian literature’ which adds or spell ‘new meaning /dimension’ of Brahman -shouldn it stay lost else ignored?

Wiki Hindu Pages Forum[edit]

There's no one there.--D-Boy 19:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch[edit]

it's up for afd. help us.--D-Boy 10:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I had to revert your latest edits to this page. The discussion had already been closed, and it is a good idea to cite specific certain edits/actions that BhaiSaab did which you disagree with, so they can be addressed rather than people getting angry because of attacks. Feel free to reply at my talk page if you have any questions or complaints about BhaiSaab's behaviour - it is already been discussed there along with the activities of a few other people involved in this. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Countering systemic bias in Hindu-related articles[edit]

Hi, I'm setting up this project as a child project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion. Will you be a part of this, per your "fundy list" discussions? --BabubTalk 11:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


aup, i did agree with you that atheistic schools such as samkya existed. see in talk-hinduism

Raj2004 10:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC) samkya is an atheistic school. I don't know why you disagreed.

Raj2004 10:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Yes, I agree with you about organization of the Hinduism page!

Raj2004 10:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

even you seem to agree, atleast in your user page, that you can be a hindu and a athiest. but the current definition of hinduism on wikipedia denies you that right.nids 11:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem user[edit]

Hi. I'm a new user who looked at the article on Hinduism and saw that a bad user (anonymous ip address) has been vandalizing the article saying that Hindus are Nazis and such. I saw the talk page and your rebuttal and was impressed. I looked at this anon user's contribs history here:

and saw that (s)he did this sort of vandalism to nazi articles and others. Some of the changes got reverted, but others did not so I reverted them and put warning template in his user page after I read the help pages on wikipedia. He might be back though so please to watch these articles. Thanks.Hkelkar 11:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Atheism in Hinduism[edit]

i started this article. i think you will do a better job for finding references and in its expansion.--nids(♂) 15:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I will try. Though I am not very organised. Aupmanyav 15:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we can mention them as most of them are happy to be called Hindus. They go to Hindu temples and vice versa. If you go out of the country and want vegetarian food, you refer to it as Hindu Jain food. There are separatist elements, granted. But still most of them do not consider themselves as non-hindus. But if you are removing here, then i think we should remove that from main Hinduism article too.--nids(♂) 18:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If you feel that way, then it should be removed from main Hinduism article. But i think for Atheism in Hinduism it will be required, because otherwise, there can be a view to exclude carvaka from hinduism too. nids(♂) 05:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You are just proving my point. I feel it wouldnt be right that Just because some Sikhs are separatist, we should not include them. You must be knowing that there are marriages between Hindu and jains and sikhs and Hindus. Most are proud for the philosophical diversity. As for Caravaka, i am not saying that they would have objected to their inclusion in Hinduism. The peoples who are objecting are our fellow friends, who want to define Hinduism in such a way so as to restrict it to shat astik darshan.nids(♂) 05:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not forcing them, just including their philosophy as an alternate hindu philosophy. I accept that you can remove the line from main Hinduism article, But when it comes to philosophy parts, they should not be alienated.nids(♂) 06:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Can your good self create a precise page on 'Naresh Sonee' & his book 'Brahman Pujan' - 'Brahmaand Pujan' . However, Sonee is the writer of this book ‘Brahmand Pujan’ written in 1999 Since 5-6 yrs, for one or the other reason pages under ‘such names’ are constantly faced by community bias here in wikipedia. Hoewver, Naresh Sonee reflects on google search engine. So, I request Indian community to kindly come forward and generously help these two pages to grow, as I am fed up to fight my case here and moved out long back. Meanwhile, such an important info/issue on ‘Indian literature’ which adds or spell ‘new meaning /dimension’ of Brahman -shouldn it stay lost else ignored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dralansun (talkcontribs) 05:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


A rider? What do you mean by that?Bakaman Bakatalk 17:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

you can help here[edit]

this is up for deletion. May be you can give some counterarguments as you said once that you are an atheist and a hindu.nids(♂) 21:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization (Hinduism)[edit]


I am very keen to reorganize the fundamental structure and nature of content in Hinduism, and have been having a very small discussion on it with HeBhagawan here, and because I have noticed your other comments in that discussion page, would also like to hear your thoughts on the subject.

Saiva suj 05:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Diwali[edit]

Best wishes celebrating good triumph over evil! GizzaChat © 23:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Raj Yog[edit]

The word "Raja" means King. While explaining Raj Vidhya, Pandurang Shashtri told that Raj Vidhya makes one king or in alternate Raj Vidhya is the king of Vidhyas. Make king should not be literally interpreted. It means understanding Raj Vidhya makes one independant like king.Swadhyayee 22:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is independent, a king? It is very difficult to be so. Aupmanyav 05:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Kama & Artha are lower Purusharths is a wrong statement.[edit]

One could say for deploring Kama & Artha as lower Purusharths. It could have been said, just to make people move to Dharma & Moksha. Lot of Sanyasees try to deplore Kama & Artha, particularly Jain Sadhus try to create hate in the minds of people living family life.

Does one not need money to do one's religious duties or support Sanyasees or Brahmins or religious institutions? Krishna has said in Srimad Bhagawad Geeta that "Kama" is my "Vibhuti." In Hindu doctrines "Kama" is supported confining sexual pleasure with one's wedded spouse in the witness of fire (A form of God), Brahmin and society. Is it possible to conquer "Kama" by any average person? Vishwamitra also sliped. When Krishna declared "Kama" as Krishna's "Vibhuti" who are we to deplore "Kama"? Indian has n' number of Sanyasees. With due respect to Swami Bhaskaranandji, I say that anything said in a particular situation or a context should not be incorporated in an article like Wikipedia which shall remain on a public forum for a long long future. Hope everyone will see the damage being done to Hindusim and restrain from continuing with statements deploring 4 pursuits of life. Swadhyayee 14:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""

Saguna Brahman[edit]

In advaita vedanta, saguna brahman means personal God. I don't know what other traditions do.

Raj2004 02:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


I have replied in Hinduism Talk page. Cygnus_hansa 14:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Namaskar. I reverted your edits because I thought that part of it was too controversial.

Hindus do not consider Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism (which originated in India) as different from them, though the adherents of these faiths may differ in this respect.

I personally don't disagree with this statement that much but it is a big assumption to say all Hindus consider Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as part of Hinduism because I know many Hindus who will say that these faiths definitely are not part of Hinduism. Some examples are Hindus in Punjab, who regard Sikhism as a very different religion to themselves especially after the Khalistan incident. Even on Wikipedia, there are Hindus who have arguments and fights with Buddhists in particular Ambedkar's Buddhists. These types of Hindus (which unfortunately exist) would definitely disagree with your edit.

However I am ready to ask the other Hinduism editors. We can post this on Talk:Hinduism and discuss this further. Thanks GizzaChat © 06:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ambedkars buddhists are not real Buddhists. The Dalai Lama is not separate from Hinduism.Bakaman 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, you have not signed.[edit]

Aupmanyavji, I think, you have not signed your last comments on talk page. To distinguish my comments from previous one, I use block text for initial two-three words. Further, I feel you should italicize your translation. If, you write two three short messages instead of one long, it would be read by more people with interest or you can give numbers to your points. Let us also understand what you and Magicalsaumi has to say. Usual time constraint compel to postpone the reading if they are long. The same thing, if seperated in 2-3 messages or by help of serial numbers tend the other editors to read without loss of time. Hope you will modify your last message as no one else should modify your message. swadhyayee 11:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I went back and I suppose, I signed everything that was not signed. Aupmanyav 12:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Roots in Kashmir[edit]

Namaskarji. I just wanted to know if you participated in the Roots in Kashmir demonstrations at all. My cousins told me that there were many demonstrations throughout India, and there is some legislation going on in parliament to do with Kashmiri Paṇḍits. I was thinking to myself, "I wish I were in India so that I could participate", but only recently found out that in fact there were demonstrations here as well--that too only 2 hours away. Anyway, I was thinking about creating a article for Roots in Kashmir, to perhaps help other find out about it. If you are unfamiliar, their website is ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 18:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Namaskarji. I would love to help you in any way that I can. If you are planning on constructing a website, however, I strongly recommend that you contact Seadog, to see if he can assist you at all, as I have deep respect for his digital aesthetics. In fact, I had only just asked him to create a template for the thirty six tattvas of Shaivism and twenty five of Samkhya and vedanta, for me. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 21:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to Talk:Hinduism participants[edit]

Namaste. You may have been involved in a discussion on Talk:Hinduism recently moved to The Hinduism notice board. If you wish to continue said topics please discuss on the noticeboard. Also please add WP:HNB to your watchlist, so we can help out all the WP:HINDU editors when needed. Thanks.Bakaman 05:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Gauranga, Brahmaji obtained Veda (knowledge) after tapas and because of that the 'dharma'. Religions did not come untill Akhenaten (I say this and only this is true). I do not believe in existence of soul, but in my view, those who do not know have many kinds of misunderstandings, religion is one of them.
Swadhyayee, it is for me to evaluate what I believe and for others to evaluate what they believe. I would not do the comparision for them. It may happen that my deduction of truth is different from their's. I believe in 'Tatwamasi' and I believe in 'chaitanya' in everything, even in a stone. If anyone differs, they are welcome to it. Of course, a christian or a muslim also is Brahman, Ekameva-Adviteeyam, only I think they have not understood a particular point, just as many hindus also might not have understood it.
Bakaji, Sri Krishna talks about 'dharma' and never about hinduism, that dharma which is for everyone and for all times. It is His 'Maya' and our ignorance which makes us a hindu, a christian, or a muslim. And thanks for moving the discussion to the notice board. Aupmanyav 05:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines[edit]

This is a minor point, but I thought I'd bring it your notice in case you are note aware of it. According to wikipedia's Talk Page Guidelines it is Unacceptable behaviour to edit even your own message on a Talk Page. It is therefore often useful to Preview your message before you actually post it. I hope you don't mind my pointing this out. Abecedare 10:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Always stumbling at some thing, ignorant me. Aupmanyav 10:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Hinduism (Hindu Dharma - the religion of Hindus, Sanātana Dharma - eternal law) originated on the Indian subcontinent. It is considered to be the oldest extant religion [1][2] and has no known founder. [3][4] It is the world's third largest religion after Christianity and Islam with approximately a billion adherents (2005 figure), of whom about 890 million live in India.[5] Other countries with large Hindu populations include Nepal, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

Hinduism is based on a number of religious texts developed over many centuries that contain spiritual insights and practical guidance for religious life. Among such texts, the Vedas are the most important and ancient along with the Upanishads. Other important scriptures include the eighteen Purāṇas and the epics, the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa. The Bhagavad Gītā, which is contained within the Mahābhārata, is a widely studied scripture that is seen as summarizing the spiritual teachings of the Vedas.[6]

Hinduism encompasses many religious beliefs, traditions, practices, and denominations. Most Hindus believe in a Supreme Cosmic Entity, Brahman, which may be considered sentient or non-sentient; or which may be worshiped in many forms represented by individual deities such as Vishnu, Shiva or Shakti. Hinduism centers on the search for the ultimate truth, and conduct which preserves the society.

Hinduism main page[edit]

Its under attack from a vandal IP address 84 .xx . May be in ur interest to watch the page.Bakaman 17:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Bhagavad GIta[edit]

You voted for Bhagavad Gita, this week's Hinduism Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

The Hinduism and Sikh Panth page[edit]

I tried tried tried so much to add information about why Hinduism & Sikhism should be united as one....BUt every time I did....Hardcore Sikhs who disagreed with me would erase what I said and put down whatever they felt like.....So I stopped putting effort in that page ARYAN818 07:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If not Dravidians, then what are we?[edit]

To user Aupmanyav:

Posted on User talk:Wiki Raja

"Since this topic concerns both of us, so I thought it better to post on your page. Aryan, of course, is welcome to join us,
if he so desires. Here is what I would like to add. You said on Aryan's page that Aryans (and Greeks) called South Indians
Dravida, it may or may not be true. There might have been people who called themselves Dravida. The writers of Vishnu
Purana and Padma Purana might have picked up the name by which these people knew themselves, e.g., Marwari for those who
lived in the earstwhile state of Jodhpur and Mewari for those who lived in the state of Udaipur. I will also contest your
view that Bharatvarsha was only North India, otherwise Kalidasa's Meghdoot would not have taken the trouble to travel all
the way from Kanyakumari to Himalaya, travelling from Vindhyas would have been enough. And if Dravidians signifies
aboriginals then those in the South India are not the only ones, you have other aboriginals in UP, Bihar, Bengal, and
Orissa. So all aboriginals of India cannot be termed as Dravidas. This was the real mischief done by christian
missionaries, they turned the name of a people into a race and separate from Aryans. Aupmanyav 12:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I will have to ask you to please show a little tolerance of other religions, since a lot of us in the South are Christians. Secondly, the aboriginals, tribals, backwards castes, and untouchables throughout the whole of India (with the exception of Eastern India) are ethnically related to the Dravidians of southern India. I am talking about both the ethnic and linguistic families in India. There have been historians, of not only European background, but from India itself, whom have stated in their books about Southern Dravidians, Central Dravidians, and Northern Dravidians in relation to ethnicity and languge. Some of these authors, linguists, anthropologist, and historians:

  • Denys De S. Bray. The Brahui Language: An Old Dravidian Languages Spoken in Parts of Baluchistan and Sind.
  • Dr R. Madhivanan. Indus Script Dravidian.
  • L.S. Ramaiah. General And Comparative Dravidian Languages And Linguistics.
  • Andronov, Michail S. A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Languages.
  • Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. Comparative Dravidian Linguistics: Current Perspectives.
  • Sanford B. Steever. The Serial Verb Formation in the Dravidian Languages (MLBD Series in Linguistics).
  • M.B. Emaneau. Kolami. A Dravidian Language.
  • Satyanarayan Das And Sunanda Das. Dravidian In North Indian Toponomy.
  • Bhaskararao, Peri. Konekor Gadaba: A Dravidian Language.

Once again, Dravidian is just a term to classify the non-Aryas of the country. If the term Dravidian is disliked so much, then let us change it to non-Aryas. I do not know why the term Dravidian causes such a ruckus to some people. For goodness sake, live and let live. We are not going into Northern India and telling everbody how to live their lives, and what to call themselves, etc. We are just minding our own business. Aupmanyav, even though our ideas, or opinions may differ, I give you kudos for some of your diplomacy shown in this discussion. Regards. Wiki Raja 10:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To user ARYAN818 :

Posted on User talk:Wiki Raja:

"Well anything can be an ethnic group....But Indians are not Dravidian....Nobody calls themself Dravidian...And some probably
dont even know what it means....And again....Why do u keep telling me about the word India?....I never disputed who coined
the name India....BUt I dont understand why u keep telling me about India......And I have been very civil what are u
talking about?......Bottom line....THere is an Aryan heriatge....but not a Dravidian heritage...."
ARYAN818 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To whom exactly is this statement “anything” referring to? Are we considered as "things" now? Is this in regards to the name ‘’Dravidian’’, or the indigenous people of Southern India? OK, let us set aside the word ‘’Dravidian’’ and not think of that now. Logically speaking, who are we? Yes, as a nationality we can say ‘’Indians’’, but I am not talking about nationality. I understand what nationality is. However, on the other hand linguistically speaking, it is more than obvious that the languages and language scripts of North and South India are totally different like night and day so we do not need to get into that. Now, on the lines of ethnicity, who are we? Are the Tamils, Telugus, Malayalees, and the Kannadigas Aryan? If we are not Aryan, then to what ethnic family do we belong? What is our heritage? Do we not have our own heritage? Why do I keep mentioning about the word ‘’Indian’’ even though the term is not being disputed? Well, the reason is because that too is not an indigenous word, just like ‘’Dravidian’’ is not an indigenous word. Therefore, both terms ‘’Indian’’ and ‘’Dravidian’’ fall in the same category of being named from non indigenous or outside sources. For some odd reason, the fact that the word ‘’India’’ itself is not an indigenous name is blatantly avoided. On the other hand, the term ‘’Dravida’’ gets attacked at every given moment. Furthermore, the term ‘’Dravida’’ is mentioned in Sanskrit sources like the Vedas, while the term ‘’India’’ is not mentioned in any South Asian literature (be it Sanskrit, Hindi, Tamil, Bengali, Punjabi,etc.). The people who should be concerned or, if so, upset about the term ‘’Davidian’’ are the people who are categorized as ‘’Dravidians’’ themselves.

Posted on Talk:Dravidian people:

I cant believe there are still people who think there are people who call themselves Dravidian.....THe term Dravidian is a
racist term made up by Euorpeans....In India nooooobody calls themself Dravidian.....I live in America and ive never met
one person from south India who says there Dravidian.....I dont know anyone that takes pride in saying there
Dravidian......And a big chunk of people dont even know what a Dravidian means!......Dont u people get it by now!....Its
2006!.....The Aryan invasion theory is a joke.....ANd the label of Dravidian is a joke to!.....Brrrrrrrruah Punjab India!
ARYAN818 22:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe that someone would post something like this on Wikipedia. First your statement "the term Dravidian is a racist term made up by Europeans..." is an accusation against the Europeans and calling them racist. "Dont u people get it by now!..." is posted. Just what on earth is that supposed to mean? "u people"? Is this statement directed towards us, or the ethnic groups in Southern India? And then the message is ended with, "Brrrrrrrruah Punjab India!"? Correct me if I am wrong, but am I sensing some kind of superiority aura here?

Posted on User talk:Wiki Raja

"U asked me if I consider the Punjabis & Tamils the same group of no.....In the bigger picture....yes...they
are the same." ARYAN818 23:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does "in the bigger picture" supposed to mean? I'm sorry, not everybody thinks the same, or can read other peoples minds, but please be more descriptive. The more we discuss into detail about the ethnic cultures of India, the weirder and eerie it gets. Now, I am not talking about the name ARYAN818. In the first place nothing crossed my mind about that particular user name since I understand that it stands for Indo-Arya. There is already a disclaimer message in bold face cap letters on your site. It is not the user name that is offending people, it is this discourteous attitude of intolerance towards other people’s cultures and heritage, and I am not talking about nationality. The above statement posted on my user talk page sends me the message that the indigenous people of Southern India in general do not exist, and should not exist. Wiki Raja 10:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Tollerance for other Peoples Faiths and Ethnicities[edit]

Why should we tolerate mischief, whether Christian or Hindu? What proof would you offer to say that 'the aboriginals,< 
tribals, backwards castes, and untouchables throughout the whole of India (with the exception of Eastern India) are
ethnically related to Dravidians (we are still debating as to who the Dravidians are?) of South India'? Language is not
the tool to find about people. Do you mean that Kashmir, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat,
Maharashtra, Uttarkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Bengal, and Assam, where
the languages are influenced by Sanskrit, are all Aryans? That way, even Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, and even Tamil
carries the Sanskrit influence. Dravida is not a term to classify the non-Aryans of India. That is the mischief. It was
the name of a particular people. Of course, non-Aryans were a majority in India. A small number of Aryans came, brought a
strong language, brought a wise book, and mingled among the non-Aryans. In the end, they nearly forgot about their Gods
and took up the worship of the local Gods, Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti, and a host of other local deities. Hindus did remember
some things from the Aryan wise book. It was a give and take. Both prospered. The Aryan ways were saved only in India and
hinduism got a wider perspective. The indigenous heritage is just as strong as ever. Aupmanyav 18:13, 4
January 2007 (UTC)

A people loose their heritage and culture when they take up foreign Gods. Look at Europeans. A large number of them 
looking for their pagan past after 1500 years of christianity. They do not remember their Gods, they do not remember
the ways of their forefathers. Look at the africans taking up Islam in America in search of their heritage. These are the
lost people. Aupmanyav 02:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I will ask you one more time to please be mindful of others faiths. What exactly is the "wise book" and what makes Sanskrit superior to other languages? The way your message sounds like is that before the arrival of the Indo-Aryans the indigenous people spoke a backward language and had not brains. In regards to religion, people are free to choose who they want to follow and whom to worship. Generalizing a whole group of people is wrong. Please use a little more caution and courtesy in regards to to other religious and ethnic groups. Thank you. Wiki Raja 02:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The wise book, of course, the Vedas. Is Sanskrit superior to other languages? A counter question - Why is that a huge 
percentage of people in the world use IE derived languages? Yes, it sure had something for it to be taken up by people
from England to India. Historical circumstances also helped. The indigenous people had enough brains to make the Aryans
and many other people from different cultures to accept our ways. Yes, everyone is free to choose his/her belief. But
people should not promote untruth and distort history for their belief. I might add, that in our rather unpleasant
exchange, we have forgotten the topic of discussion, i.e., who are the Dravidas. Of course, Tamils have the best claim,
but what is the proof? I am an Indian, if Hindi is my mother, then Tamil is my mother's sister. Perhaps, you do not
understand this. Aupmanyav 18:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks on myself and on other peoples faiths and ethnicities. This is my last request from you. Thank you. Wiki Raja 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I really didn't think I'd find anyone with such similarities in belief as myself. Trips (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


I noticed your comments on User talk:Wiki Raja. You appear to be proselytizing, which is not an appropriate thing to do on Wikipedia. Please be mindful of the fact that the Wikipedia community is made up of all ethnicities and faiths, and harmonious editing becomes impossible is people are unwilling to be tolerant of that. I understand your desire to explore philosophical issues, but I believe that Wiki Raja is not interested in doing so any more so I'd ask that you leave him be. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wiki Raja may help me in solving the riddle of the Dravidas. But if he is not interested, I would cease any correspondence with him. I am corresponding with many who are not Hindus, in Wikipedia, and elsewhere. Aupmanyav 10:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism and creationism[edit]

I saw your comments on the talk page of this article, and I know exactly why you object to the content and current title : because as of present the article cites, what I consider, some marginal Hindu organizations/individual's opposition to evolution and perhaps creates the impression that this is the mainstream view. I think the way to overcome that is not by deleting these view, but rather by providing referenced information on the mainstream Hindu/Indian view(s) on evolution (which I think range from ignorance, ambivalence, acceptance to unorganized opposition). With these additions hopefully the article would present a "true" picture on the subject of "Hinduism and Creationism" - whatever that may be ...
I hope you too will continue to contribute in this endeavor ! Thanks. Abecedare 17:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I do think that proposed title might be a reasonable description of that sect, so I took the liberty of using it as as section heading. Perhaps some later might disagree, but for now, I think it is quite reasonable.--Filll 18:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry if I created the impression that I thought you deleted anything ! Rather I left the message as a token of my appreciation of your answers on WT:HNB and comments on the article's talk page; and because your discuss-before-you-delete approach to the article is something I agree with (see Talk:Hinduism and creationism/Arch1 for some previous acrimonious exchanges).
I think this illustrates how all communication is so fraught with potential pitfalls ... :-) Abecedare 18:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I found this in the archive (Hinduism and Creationism): 'Hitler seems to have permanently wrecked Hinduisms most holy symbol.' from Noble Eagle. That is not correct. Swastika is hale and hearty with hindus. Hindus (and others from India) wrecked Hitler in the battle of Al-Alamein, the first Allied win against his Panzers. Aupmanyav 18:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Devanagari Aum[edit]

The symbol Aum in the Tamil script

Thought I'll post this on your talk page. Aren't these interpretations one's personal interpretations? They could be notable only if held by a majority or a significant minority. The article sounds as if the Aum symbol was designed keeping this in mind, while the symbol clearly comes from merging the devanagari "अ" (A) "ऊ" (U) and "ँ" (M) characters and not by joining semicircles and dots symbolizing various things. Besides the devanagari symbol, we have symbols in various languages, like the Tamil symbol on right (and Tibetan, Chinese, Gurmukhi, etc). The theory of semicircles is elegant, but is not given by a scholar or a religious leader, but a Nitin Kumar, an employee of an online store that sells these Aum motifs [1]. Aum derives its importance from the three syllables, the vibrations they generate, not its notation used to denote it in Devanagari script (which is less than 800 years old.) Read also the introduction of the very same article, which is very well written. It mentions how mantras like Aum are all about sound symbolism. It also says:

For many cultures it is the written letters that have power -- the Hebrew Kabbalah for instance, or the Anglo-Saxon Runes. Letters can have an oracular function even. But in India special conditions applied that meant that writing was very definitely inferior to the spoken word."

I see this semicircle hypothesis in direct contradiction of all this. It's one of those elegant theories I'd love to believe too, but certainly doesn't conform to the facts. deeptrivia (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aupmanyav. The point is, if it's factually incorrect (in fact it's simply absurd), it ought to be removed. Addition of Original Research or material from dubious sources is a big issue. deeptrivia (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your comment on the notice board, I am a North Indian, Hindi is my native language, and I am not familiar with any Indian script other than Devanagari. The only point is, if the semicircle interpretation is one (or a handful) non-notable person's view it should definitely be out of wikipedia without delay. This has nothing to do with one language vs. other, but about protecting wikipedia content from addition of dubious original research. The anonymous IP [2] who added this stuff must have done it with good intentions, but this was among his first five edits on wikipedia, and he surely would not be aware of what could go on wikipedia. deeptrivia (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
All I have been asking at this point is that we let a "more sources needed" tag on the relevant section. [3]. This was promply removed. Basically, I discovered this piece of text while we were discussing Aum vs. Swastika on a talk page, and some users thought I want to remove this information to weaken the case for Aum. Had I discovered this earlier, of course I would have still done the same thing. deeptrivia (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be great if you could ask Mr. A. Ramachandran for the sources. I have already done that [4]. This was conveniently ignored and the tag asking for more references was deleted. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Respectful warning[edit]

With all due respect, Please do not accuse other editors of 'terrorism'... such comments are highly inflammatory, extremely disrespectful and can be construed as a personal attack. To constructively deal with disagreements, try to concentrate on content, rather than contributors. You have my thanks in advance. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeking opinion from regular editors on reference pattern[edit]

References: Notes and citations section; change in reference and notes temporarily ceased; WP:FOOT says I am not doing wrong; Separate Notes and Citation sections

Opinion is sought from regular editors of the article Hinduism regarding the splitting of Notes and references section. This is a short gist of the discussions going on in the above mentioned talk links: Having a separate "Notes" (for explanatory remarks) and "Citations" (for direct citations), although permitted, is relatively rare in Wikipedia, and also in academic journals. The main rationale behind doing this is to distinguish a series of explanatory remarks from the series of citations (please see Rabindranath Tagore, Demosthenes for examples).

This sandbox gives a glimpse of how the article would look if we split the sections (the sandbox is under work, so may not be perfect). This link shows how the article looks with combined section. This may give an idea how it looked when I started working on references. I converted many references to Harvard format, apart from splitting the sections.

Opinion for regular editors are sought regarding the application of splitting of two section for this article. Please do so in Talk:Hinduism in the section Talk:Hinduism#Seeking_opinion_from_regular_editors_on_reference_pattern. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There is difficulty in defining hinduism![edit]

I think there are none at all. Hindus are those who follow 'dharma' (duty and righteous action) and say that they are hindus. Kind of belief about God/Gods/Goddesses or none is a person's choice. Where is the problem? Aupmanyav (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that there is a statement in almost every academic publication saying that there is a difficulty. I have no difficulty in accepting your definition, but since RS say that there is - it should be reflected in the article. First of course I suggest putting definition of Hinduism by Hindus. Can you find reliable source to your definition? That would be a start. Thank you for your message. Wikidās ॐ 10:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You Had A Reply For Me[edit]

You left me a message that you responded to a message at wiki/veda? I don't see any such thing?MPA 17:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talkcontribs)

Thank you for your message[edit]

Sorry for the delay in replying to your message. It is indeed a pleasure to hear from the grandson of Pandit Reu. Apologies for the misspelling of Bishweshwar, in my defence, it was the Library of Congress which started me down that path. Thanks for all the new information on Pandit Reu, my knowledge of this field is not as detailed as I would like it to be. I hope you would do me the honor of adding this information to Pandit Reu's page.

With best regards

SUSHRUTA (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

APPEAL TO YOU Reg: [BRAHMAN PUJAN] , [UNIVERSAL PRAYERS] . written by [Naresh Sonee] On wikipedia , These above two pages are far older than the present article [Brahman] References of above titles are also available on New York site - Meanwhile, Can your good selves in Wiki Indian Community re-create a precise pages on [Naresh Sonee] & his book [Brahmand Pujan] – [Brahmaand Pujan] . However, Sonee is the writer of this book [Brahmand Pujan] written in 1999 . registered with Government of India- HRRD. Details of the registration is provided here on . More than sufficient, news and reviews are there on Since 5-6 yrs, for one or the other reason pages of [Naresh Sonee] & [Brahmand Pujan] are faced by communal bias from outside India so these articles over and again get deleted here in Wikipedia for minor reasons. However, many hits of - Naresh Sonee reflects on google search engine also. So, I request Wiki Indian community to kindly come forward and generously help these two pages to grow, as I am fed up to fight my case alone here [left] and moved out long back. Meanwhile, such an important info/issue on ‘Indian literature’ which adds & spell ‘new meaning /dimension’ to Brahman -should it stay lost else ignored? Your community panel has to judge at last. Myself, will not be on Wikipedia, for the same i apologise, but- pls. help these two pages to get reinstalled, reap, sow and grow, if you too feel so, I appeal to do this munificent favour. Regards- Dralansun (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC).