User talk:Buddhipriya

.

Please post new comments at the bottom of the page. If you post a comment here I will probably answer here in order to keep conversations together. If you prefer reply somewhere else please mention that. Buddhipriya 17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nirukta

I don't know if I can contribute to the article in content, but I certainly enjoyed reading it! By the way, you may want to request User:Rudrasharman to weigh in - I recall he had referenced Nirukta (particularly Naighantuka) during the discussions on the Talk:Ashvamedha page. Cheers. Abecedare 07:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Nirukta article needs some work to divide material properly among Yaska, Nirukta and Nighantu. Basically, Yaska is the author of the eponymous Nirukta, which was a commentary, cast as a treatise on etymology, on the eponymous Nighantu. So, we have an inter-related complex of (a) the Nighantu, an ancient glossary, which gave its name to a genre, (b) the Nirukta, Yaska's commentary on the Nighantu, which also gave its name to a discipline, and (c) Yaska's specific theory of etymology contained in his work. Considering what's already in the Nighantu and Yaska articles, some material should probably be removed or shortened in the Nirukta article. rudra 05:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent edits. I agree completely with the three-pronged approach. I will look to see if I can find any other possible references and will give it another read within a week or so. The use of it as a rhetorical device in commentaries is an application that interests me. I very much appreciate your help in looking at it. Buddhipriya 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha article

Thanks for the heads-up. I've added the article to my watchlist and also made a request for help here. It's becoming a bit of an irritation.

On a more positive note - would you know any article where this photograph I uploaded last year might find a good home? Best Wishes, ys Gouranga(UK) 11:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Maleabroad's new sock is also under discussion at User_talk:Abecedare#Socks and at User_talk:Aldux#Sock_puppets. I think it is only a matter of time now before this particular sock is extinguished but we need to keep all of the pages that he has been working on on watch list for a while as a new sock will probably appear. Who says there is no proof of reincarnation? On Wikipedia it happens every day.

Regarding the photo, thanks for letting me know of it. If you can add any additional details about which festival it was at, the city in which the festival took place, and the size and function of the murti it would make it even more useful in some articles, which could include specific festivals, temples, etc. The image has the look of a large-scale parade image designed for utimate water immersion on Ganesh Chaturthi. Is that in fact what it was? If so, it could be a good illustration to explain that particular type of image, which produces a thriving seasonal economic boost in some parts of India. Buddhipriya 16:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It was from the Ganesh Chaturthi festival in Mumbai in 2004 - I've added the additional information to the image summary. The murthi was gigantic in size, I may have another photo somewhere which shows the size relation with the onlookers below. Will have a look for it... Ys, Gouranga(UK) 09:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The new photo showing it to scale is very nice. The use of large moveable murtis during Ganesh Chaturthi is potentially an issue that could be illustrated by this, particularly if you know if the murti was in fact a temporary one designed to be carried later in the festival parades and finally immersed in water. I cannot quite make out if the location was an enclosed temple, or one of the temporary pavillions that are sometimes built for these images. If it was within an enclosed space with doors, the image would be too large to get out the door (perhaps). If it was an immersion image it may have been placed under a canopy or temporary pavillion from which it could be removed easily. This may seem like a minor detail, but it actually would help with classification of exactly what type of murti it is. From the detail picture it strikes me as of the sort of design and construction that is often used for the parade floats, in which case the material would have been a sort of papier mache or other temporary construction designed to dissolve in water. So anything you can say about the enclosure would be an interesting commentary.

Iconographically it is one of the standard modern forms, with the two upper arms holding the goad and noose (symbols of stimulation and retardation of action) which are common emblems of his role as Vignesha (Lord of Obstacles). The lower hand in the gesture of "no fear" and the other hand holding a modaka are standard for this four-armed variant. The iconography is therefore a good example of a very common representation. Compare this example of the same general form, but in that example the objects held in the upper hands are not clearly of the same type. Buddhipriya 21:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The murthi was within a large temporary Pavillion which was also no more than 30mins walk away from the beach. From that and what you say above I'm assuming he was ultimately going to be immersed into the sea. When I visited there where literally thousands of people queing for darshan, some waiting for many hours. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 17:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! I think we have figured it out. If you can add the above information about the pavillion and the crowd to the image description it would preserve those sociological facts, which taken with the date of the event make it certain that this was designed as a sort of "parade float". Now that we have pinned it down, I will work on getting it in somewhere. FYI, there is an envioronmentalist angle here, which is there is sometimes criticism of the festival's climax, which involves immersion of hundreds of dissovable images in bodies of water. Buddhipriya 17:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Ganesha picture

No problems at all with the cut & paste - I have no other image of the crowd, but do have a much clearer (& complete) photo of Ganesh taken from a nearer distance if you think that will help? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 13:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Advaita

Alright, I can prepare a presentation for you. Please start by reading this, in case you haven't already. The title of the subsection in question is POV. It would be better to say "Buddha as a non-dualist." There are no sources cited; for this reason I find it somewhat odd that you reverted my edit which gave a general reference. Madhyamika was the first fully developed non-dual philosophy, and its brand of non-dualism is (in my and David Loy's view) more sophisticated than any later philosophies such as Advaita. I hope you can see how a Buddhist would interpret the implication that Advaita is the true development of the Buddha's thought as objectionable. Arrow740 08:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for getting in touch. I will read the paper that you have provided a link to in detail (I will not have time to do so before making this reply). The link says "This paper is part of a Ph. D. thesis on "nonduality" which will be submitted to National University of Singapore." and as such the web site probably does not qualify as a reliable source per WP:RS because it is a "self-published" source. Could you please raise the issue on the talk page for the article rather than here, so other editors will be able to see your comments. You very well may be right on the point you are raising, I am just unclear on what it is and how it is cited. Let's continue dialog on that talk page. Buddhipriya 16:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RS's

The Buddhism articles have problems like that too. Not much is cited. I think what happened is that this stuff got in early on before there was much of a focus on having things cited. I spend most of my time in the Islam space, where every single clause added needs to be cited because the subject is so controversial. Islam-related articles that look like the Hinduism and Buddhism articles get nominated for AfD's. I'm hoping to check out some books and add some more to the Upanishad article. I'm pretty sure that Mahavira and the Buddha weren't concerned with the Upanishads at all. The Buddha said that focusing on an eternal self gives rise to suffering in the Brahmajala Sutta, and Atman=Brahman would probably fall under that. In any case, your point is well taken. Arrow740 03:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very supportive of your efforts to upgrade the articles. I would be very happy to add some of the articles that you are interested in to my own watch list and assist here and there. I have found that the best approach with some of these is to make only small edits and then wait a few days to see what happens. Making many edits at once invites wholesale reversions. My own area of interest is primarily Hinduism with particular reference to the issue of textual criticism. I am also interested in some Buddhist topics mainly from the point of view of early Buddhism and the development of the ideas from earlier strata of philosophical content. If you flag things with tags it would at least fire a warning shot which other can notice and then assist you with finding references to complement your own. The Upanishads are a collection of over 100 major works which contain mutually-contradictory statements of all types. Any generalizations about them can be risky business as the strains of thought which they contain are not well defined in the articles now. Some of these articles are so bad all I do is start by adding fact tags to the most obvious nonsense, wait a week, and then begin cutting things. Since it takes more time to compose a solid citation than to type in nonsense, those of us who read books are at a competitive disadvantage on Wikipedia. Buddhipriya 03:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Upanishads article should be much longer. They form a fascinating corpus. I'll try to add to it. I'm going to try to add to the Nagarjuna article as well. You said, "I am also interested in some Buddhist topics mainly from the point of view of early Buddhism and the development of the ideas from earlier strata of philosophical content." I agree that is a fascinating topic. I'm wondering if you've read the Brahmajala Sutta? If you start here and then look at the fourth category of Ekacca Sassata Ditthi here, the Buddha seems to be saying that identifying any of the three more abstract skandhas as the eternal Self is an incorrect view. That could be seen as an attack on the Atman theory, in which the self is the same as Brahman, which is infinite consciousness. Yogic techniques seem to isolate consciousness, which can then be identified as the eternal Self, ground of all being, etc. What do you think? Arrow740 04:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In looking at the Nagarjuna article I noticed a minor point regarding the use of the IAST tag in articles which contain Indic text. The use of IAST has produced some debate among editors about how to work IAST into the style standards. I refactored a thread regarding this which you can read in summary at Talk:IAST#More_on_use_of_IAST. I would be interested in your views on the issues raised there. Most of the editors who work on Hinduism articles do not also spend a lot of time on the Buddhism articles, so those two groups of articles follow somewhat different style standards, but the transliteration issues for Devanagari are the same (regardless of whether Sanskrit or Pali is involved, as it is about the writing system, not the language encoded).

I will look over the link you provide later. I would like to review the materials before guessing at an opinion on your specific point. I have never studied the Brahmajala Sutta. In approaching the work the first thing I would do is try to place it within the context of a specific Theravada school. I do not see any dating for it in the article, and dating would also be helpful. Many of the articles fail to notice that both Hinduism and Buddhism are very complicated religions with many schools that often are in conflict with one another. If someone says "X" it can be assumed that someone else has said "Y". So methodology could be to first place the work within a context, and then look at how that context relates to the big picture. Buddhipriya 15:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have looked up the Brahmajala Sutta in Maurice Winternitz' History of Indian Literature and find that he has a rather different background on it than what is in the current Wikipedia article, which contains no footnotes at all. I will try to add some of the material from Winternitz, but I have found that it can be difficult to begin to touch any of these articles. Winternitz points out that one of the main teachings of this sutta is that the true disciple of the Buddha will avoid pointless philosophical speculations, and in that vein no less than 62 different philosophical views are presented in order to show the folly of engaging in such arguments. (e.g, vol. II of Winternitz, p. 38, where he makes that point). The other material on this is too long to type here, and I will look again at the main article to see if any references can be inserted there. For the Buddhist materials that I have not personally studied I tend to want to stick to citations to standard sources. The Winternitz reference is a voluminous reference work that is considered authoritative, and volume 2 includes the Buddhist materials. Buddhipriya 23:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, I look forward to seeing your additions there. I recently read the idea that the advaita-type monism in the Upanishads are in Upanishads post-dating the Buddha. Do you know anything about that? It seems unlikely. What do people say about the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad for example? Arrow740 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Brahmajala Sutta, I have added your request for references to my to do list but I may not be able to add them for a few days. I try to focus my time on Wikipedia to certain articles at once, and right now we are engaged in upgrades to a couple of other things. I am not sure I understand your question regarding the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. You may want to repost that question on the talk page for that article to see if others who have studied it have an opinion. Regarding the general issue of Advaita and its relationship to Monism, again, I would recommend that you try to get more input by posting on the talk pages for those articles. Your questions are very interesting and deserve serious comment. Because it would take some time to answer with a solid reference, I hesitate to make any broad statement, but getting the issue onto the talk pages is a good first step. I have found that sometimes it can take several weeks between the time a question is raised and when any meaningful answer arises. Buddhipriya 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Himalayan Academy material

Namaste Buddhipriya! Great name. I am Natha, a member of Himalayan Academy Publications. I want to thank you for the kindness you used when talking about copyright and spamming issues with Anantashakti. I was also unaware of the rules about role accounts in Wikipedia; there's a lot to learn here about policies. I have changed that account to show that I am an individual who is mostly making proper donations of Hindu Art to Wikimedia through my user account.

I also want to tell you that Anantashakti is a person who, out her love for Hinduism, has decided to contribute material from Hinduism Today Magazine to Wikipedia; but actually any content from that magazine of from the publications here can be uploaded, and I'll be happy to notify Wikimedia of the copyright grants. It's a very big resource, made by Hindus, endorsed by swamis and sadhus and followers of the religion worldwide (opinions). It is valuable as a view from the inside, to be compared and complemented by the academic view.

There is a strong line diving editorial policies that apply to our books by Subramuniyaswami and that of Hinduism Today. While the books are specific about the opinions of Saiva Siddhanta Hinduism, the magazine has been working for years to present Hinduism in a broad, objective non-sectarian view that may contribute more to Wikipedia's NPV standards.

We hope it helps. Thank you a lot. Natha 20:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Namaste. Thank you for getting in touch. I have read Loving Ganeśa and enjoyed it very much, so I had prior familiarity with the Himalayan Academy. I also have seen the magazine Hinduism Today. Your generosity in sharing your materials is appreciated. As you have seen, there is nothing on Wikipedia that is not controversial. When I first joined Wikipedia I was told by a wise Wikiguru that I would encounter many people whose motivations would be difficult to understand. That has proved true, but I also have found many nice people who will help if help is asked.

If you have not already done so, you may want to read up on some of the areas of concern that often arise such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. My perception of the problems that arose earlier is that some of them were due to the fact that images were tagged with the GFDL license, which inherently may cause complaints about spam due the attribution requirements of that class of release. See: [1]. Due to the criticisms of the GFDL license, any image tagged with it is sometimes objected to by some Wikipedia editors. The GFDL license, unlike a release to the public domain, leaves a string attached to each image, which is the problem. The problem with restricted gifts is addressed in the Bhagavad Gita 17.20-22, where Lord Krishna points out that gifts with strings attached are classified as rajasic (17.21). I believe your intent is sattvic (17.20) but the trick is to convince others of that fact.

With regard to links to the online version of the magazine, the sticking point is probably going to be that most of the individual articles do not cite what would be considered WP:RS and as such links to individual articles are likely to be reverted by other editors on that basis.

If I can be of any service to you in thinking any of this through, please let me know. And thank you again for your participation. Buddhipriya 20:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, it's certainly nice to have people whom we can relate to around, who are just trying to help. Nice thing that you mentioned User:Abecedare; the scriptures talk a lot how easier it is to learn from a much more knowledgeable person, and how much less bumpy a road.

Thank you for the information about GFDL. I don't think Hinduism Today is ready for releasing the credits, due to legal obligations.

I understand WP:RS as well. After 28 years and printing 15,000 copies each issue, however, HToday has become an acceptable source to cite, I believe.

Our intention, as you well pointed out, is to make it all available. We hope the world can use it in some way. Thank you for your help. Aum Buddhipriaya namah!

Aum shanti, Natha 21:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

re: wikicooikie, trivia section peter pan

Hello, thank you for your support in the Peter Pan trivia section debate. You mentioned that you have more articles on your watchlist that needed attention. I would be happy to have a look at them. Could you create a list somewhere? Your own or my talk page perhaps?

Also, in case you are not familiar with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup: If you tag the sections/articles with {{wp:toomuchtrivia}}, they will appear in the category of Category:Articles with large trivia sections, and someones attention might be drawn to it. Dr bab 22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. I am interested in certain folklore topics and find that there is a lot of trivia on various pages related to that. Some of them are so intertwined with trivia it is difficult to separate the sugar from the salt. Take a look at Gremlin for starters. Buddhipriya 22:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I will start to look at Gremlin now. By first glance it looks like a difficult case, as is to be expected. I will get back to you, and we can discuss a course of action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr bab (talk • contribs) 23:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Ok. Here is my thoughts on Gremlin: I think the Air Force references, and how Roald Dahl made the concept famous should be put in a separate section, as this seems to be the most important and original concept of Gremlin. Indeed, i think the airforce-part needs to be inclduded in the opening statement. The other occurrences of these airforce-gremlins, the Buggs Bunny episode, twilight zone etc could then be put in a separate section, "Gremlins in popular culture". The items in this second section could probably benefit from being shortened somewhat from their current form. Lastly, other appearances of gremlins that are unrelated to these origninal air-force gremlins (dungeons and dragons etc.) will need a mention, in a section named somthing like "other depictions of gremlins" or something similar.

So I suggest a split of the article into three. Of these, the first one should be the most substantial, since this is, in my opinion, the real article.

Unfortunately, since Gremlins, in all kinds of forms and shapes, are everywhere in cartoons, video games, role playing games, fantasy literature etc, "the third section" i mention above is probably needed that deals with "other kinds of goblins". This should be a section, perhaps one paragraph long, describing the very fact that other goblins exist in a variety of shapes, perhaps mentioning a few examples. It should NOT be an indiscriminate list. Unfortunately, there is every chance that once we include one or two examples, people will be tempted do add and re-add to this list. We could add an html tag like "<!-- ATTENTION EDITORS: PLEASE DO NOT ADD CULTURAL REFERENCES TO THIS SECTION WITHOUT READING THE TALK PAGE.->". Then we could have a section on the talk page where we make clear the intentions of the "other goblins" section.

This is indeed a difficult case. Please tell me what you think.Dr bab 23:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consultation, Doctor, I feel better just listening to the diagnosis. :) I agree that the root problem here is a failure to differentiate different uses of the term. See: Folklore#Categories_of_folklore. My personal interest is mainly in the really old stuff, the original roots of the concept, as opposed to modern uses. I would support any attempt to unscramble the mess of random facts that is there now, particularly if some strata can be found based on age sequence of the original concept. I like the idea of putting the html warning tag in, and I often do that when doing linkspam prevention. It probably would be good to fire a warning shot on the talk page before charging in too forcefully. I am not clear on the difference between trivia and uses in popular culture. Is there documentation for this somewhere?Buddhipriya 00:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is a documentation on the difference. I think trivia and in popular culture-sections in many cases are identical, but in popular culture sections may have the potential to become useful sections, whereas trivia-sections are just collections of odd facts. I will get to work on Gremlin tomorrow, starting by clearing out the most irrelevant pieces of trivia, and trying to re-organise the rest in the manner suggested. I will then put up a notice on the talk page about the need to limit the "in popular culture" sections, and suggest to add the html-tag. This will be tomorrow though, as it is getting rather late in my part of the world, and I will sign off just now. Until tomorrow. Dr bab 00:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. Also had a look at Gnome, a similar solution could be used there, I reckon.

Ok, I did an edit of the Gremlin article. Hopefully, from here we can make it into a better article. Please tell me what you think of my edits (also what you might not like), and if you have any suggestions to a further course of action, I would be thankful.

Let's just hope the trivia-related edits are left alone. I cut a lot of stuff that was basically plot-summaries of the different references. Dr bab 20:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Images for the article

I'm trying to find an image for the "Rise to prominence" section. How's this image of a Ganesha statue ffrom Andhra Pradesh? I also found this showing Shiva, Parvati, and Ganesha, although the picture wouldn't go in the "Rise to prominence" section. Could you have a look? Happy editing, [sd] 23:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of two images related to large temporary murtis that may work is under User_talk:Buddhipriya#Ganesha_article. The two views of the same statue are this photograph and this one. These could be worked in with a comment related to the construction of large festival murtis if the photos themselves are good enough to include. I sort of like the one showing Shiva, Parvati, and Ganesha because it is very typical of modern devotional works showing this theme, which is very popular. We could adjust the text to move the material about his family relationships to create a section, and also mention his brother Skanda who is usually considered to be his little brother but sometimes the other way around. Additional citations can be found for all of this. Regarding the Vyasa picture, there are some great pictures showing the dictation in progress but I don't see any available here. If I understood Wiki copyright rules better, perhaps I could upload something. Go ahead and do whatever you like with stubbing out pictures, we can always adjust later. Buddhipriya 23:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait before adding any new pictures. I think a "Family" section could be added to the article. If the article becomes too long, you could move "Consorts" section to Consorts of Ganesha and write a section in the main article in summary style. On a note related to the "Rise to prominence" section, could you break apart that section into subsections? Cheers, [sd] 00:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have put subsections into the "Rise to prominence" section as you asked, let me know if they make sense to you. The "Family" section is not a bad idea. I agree that the level of detail for Consorts is out of proportion with the rest of the article, which another editor noted in the peer review. Do you think we need to get more agreement on that, or can I just do it? If I did, I would then rewrite the main article to add the "Family" section and expand content on that. I wish we could find some of the pictures that show him playing with his little brother Skanda, or riding with Dad upon Nandi. There is a whole category of such things related to Bala Ganesha (Boy Ganesha). Buddhipriya 00:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you are working now, so I will stop cleaning the wives out to prevent edit conflicts. I made the move, and would you please look at the citations to see if they all went? The References need to be redone but I am out of time right now and can do them later. Buddhipriya 00:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to sort things out so you can take a look later. Happy editing, [sd] 00:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done some summarizing. Please review my edits and make any necessary changes. Also, feel free to add images as you see fit. Since the "Buddhi (Wisdom)" section is mostly about Ganesha's association with intelligence, I propose it being moved to the "Association" section. Happy editing, [sd] 03:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

By all means, make it so! Cut, cut, cut the previous consort section, as we have all of it elsewhere and keeping two versions will be a nightmare. You are right that the Buddhi connection is primarily an attribute. The same is also true for Riddhi (material prosperity) and Siddhi (spiritual prosperity), the latter two tending to be interchanged with one another, with Buddhi tending to be kept in most configurations. Use your judgement and BE BOLD! Buddhipriya 03:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am continuing to look forward to further copyedits by you and am trying to sit back a bit because I am so eager to see your work! It is fun to work with you and I urge you to be bold in continuing to copyedit or make other changes. Thanks so much. Buddhipriya 17:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes I have made can be viewed here. As you can see, I have not yet worked on all the sections of the article. Many FAC reviewers also like to see the article copy-edited by a Wikipedia who isn't familiar with text. Aside from that, please review my edits and look for anything else that needs to be added or sourced. By the way, it's possible I won't be actively editing for a few days (busy in R.L.). Happy editing, [sd] 01:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have gone over the version to date and am really enjoying watching you work. I made a few minor tweaks and you can check the edit summaries for each one. Feel free to revert any of them if you wish and let me know what the issues are. I look forward to your next pass. Buddhipriya 05:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the article. I've readded the {{IAST}} templates to the "Aum" section. Happy editing, [sd] 11:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anticipation

Your well needed intervention on Linga brings me here in search of guidance. A special case of Linga icon lingodbhavamurti has Lord Shiva emergeing from a mandorla. ref: Huntington Archive This links the iconography to the beautyful romanesque stonecuttings picturing Christ in the mandorla. Again one anticipates the controversy over the gross conotation of creation related symbolism. In devotive festivals involving lingodbhavamurti the leaves of the bilva tree are used. I also read vilva leaves, related to fertility symbolism and I remember vaguely the etymology of vulva from the sanskrit ulva ? But how are vilva and vulva etymologically related ? In this -as in all else- I am no expert. Also, I talk to much; at times with selective rudeness.

In this case however I offer to stand corrected by whatever your guidance inspires

With profound respect

Lunarian 11:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Namaste. Thanks for getting in touch. I could not find the picture you are referring to. Can you give a direct link to it? Regarding the Linga article, I think that for all articles where POV issues are involved it is helpful to have more eyes looking at the page, including as many neutral editors as possible who are simply watching for WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I am not an expert on anything except my own foolishness. I do find iconographic symbolism interesting and if we can find the specific picture I would enjoy looking at it. I will see if I can find anything regarding the specific etymology question that you ask. I am not a linguist, and am largely ignorant of the issues of Indo-European transfers. As you probably know, those sorts of linguistic questions sometimes trigger debates. I will have limited time on Wikipedia for the next few days, but so long as your question remains here it will be on my watch list for pending action. Buddhipriya 17:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

fwiiw, Sanskrit ulva "cover, envelope, cavity, womb" may indeed be cognate to Latin vulva. I don't see any possible connection of this with the plant name bilva "Aegle marmelos". dab (𒁳) 18:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, no need to rush.

lingodbhavamurtis

Christ in mandorla

see also birth of adonis

It was the Linga discussion that brought me to these fantastic Siva icons. There is a hole history of symbolism linking the (mandorla = ) almond to the tree of light, for example in the design of the menorah (the hebrew word for almond is luz) but also to phallic reference; very exiting and worth some mention on Wiki but let's not overhaste.

It's sheer beauty though,

Lunarian 22:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

PS I see now that the bilva leaves are almond shaped !

description

I do not mean to impose, and I hope it changes from interminable edit problems. Thank you for your patient endurance. :)

Lunarian 11:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I got a message from you about me vandalizing some article on Vedas. All I did was remove some "timing" information from the article which I didn't consider to be accurate. It said something like although the Vedas have been around since 2000 BC ... I consider the Vedas as apaurusheya, hence my deletion.

Manas

The above message was posted by the following anonymous IP user: [2], apparently regarding this deletion of sourced content that he made. Buddhipriya 06:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

Hi. See User:AndyZ/peerreviewer for details on automatic peer review. You'll need to edit your monobook.js. Here is the peer review you want:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), ization (A) (British: isation).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Shahab 19:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Remarks on vandalism

Before placing any further warning templates on talkpages, please do attempt to learn what vandalism is; a reading of WP:VAND might be instructive. In particular, content disagreements are not vandalism. Accusations of vandalism are tantamount to questioning an editor's good faith, and suchin incivility is taken quite seriously here.

I have removed your templates from my talkpage; I fear they might cause visitors to my page to judge you over-harshly, and one would not want that. Hornplease 07:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for getting in touch. I am sorry that you do not agree with the warnings you have received for blanking cited content. Repeated removal of cited content is not acceptable editing, as the warnings you have received explain. You are welcome to raise your concerns on the talk page for the article to build more agreement for whatever points you wish to make. Removal of warnings from your page does not result in the warnings being eliminated from the system, as they can be retrieved via history, e.g., this final warning for blanking [3]. Your blanking of warnings may be construed by some as further evidence of bad faith on your part. A record of your removal is here: [4] I look forward to continuing this discussion on the talk page for the article itself if you wish to continue to raise the point which you are concerned about. Buddhipriya 07:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeated removal of inappropriate cited content accompanied with an explanation as to its inappropriateness is perfectly valid. Your inability to apparently read or comprehend that explanation and subsequent incivility is a little less so. I note that you used the talk page a a grand total of zero times in this regard.

If you construe my removal of your extremely useful warnings as evidence of bad faith, please do say so. You say it may be construed by some as such. I can assure you that nobody who looks at the issue and has been here for long enough is likely to. I can only assume you are talking about yourself; in which, it would nice if you say so, and we can then investigate an appropriate response.

Also, I thank you deeply for your explanation of how the editing history tab works. I had no idea it existed. Now that I see it, I have used it to discover that I have been around in this avatar for several years and I seem to recall editing well before that, from when WP was mainly red links. All this time, and I never knew that editing history was preserved! Many thanks for letting me know. Hornplease 07:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your Interest

I see from the message you left you are worried about uncited text, which this article has plenty. I will try to help you remove all the unnecessary uncited text in Criticism of Hinduism, thanks for your interest--Kathanar 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Read the article before leaving accusations and icons, assume good faith. the reference is still there as shown in history, [5], there were 2 edits, the one after the history you show to make sure the reference was still there. Thank you, please have a good day. --Kathanar 12:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added a comment regarding these edits on the talk page for the article. I have noted there for the record that you restored the citation which you deleted. Examination of the edit history for Criticism of Hinduism will show that there has been controvery over that article. I look forward to discussing the article with you in more detail on the talk page for it. Buddhipriya 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually kathanar has been adding his own original research and anti-Hindu polemic to the article. You can safely ignore his warnings.Bakaman 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Baka is this another one of your gang, I should of guessed, go take your Anti-Christian "polemic" somewhere else--Kathanar 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for adding your points of view. If further discussion on this matter is needed, I request that it take place on the talk page for the article so other editors may see all points of view. I am a member of the Wikipedia:Harmonious_editing_club and one of my personal goals is to encourage a fair airing of all sides of a question on the talk pages for the article to try to build consensus around controversial edits. That approach allows for a wide exchange of views to ensure that all angles are given a fair hearing and that all WP:RS can be examined in detail. Regarding matters of faith, I believe that all paths up the moutain lead to the same peak. Buddhipriya 22:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Yoga and Bhagavad-Gita

Hello Buddhipriya - Thank you for your edits on these articles, I'm more than happy to collaborate with you on them both. Have been too busy to reply over the past few days. I've changed a few things here and there in the Bhagavad Gita article. I feel the majority of the information is there, but it needs polishing and bringing a bit more into the centre, especially in terms of the refences, which are largely from Bhagavad Gita as-it-is at the moment. Om Tat Sat, ys, Gouranga(UK) 08:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're right

Thank you for noticing that I've been (very slowly) working on the "History of Saivam" article. You're absolutely correct that references are needed but I have none at this time. The information I'm given to work with is all contained in the article itself, extensive notes left in the Discussion by Kothandaraman and conversations I'm having via e-mail with Mr. Kothandaraman (in Tamilnadu) who has been generous and kind with explanations.
I'm from the League of Copyeditors, this article had been sitting ignored in their backlog for some time; my task was to bring organization to it and correct punctuation, grammar and spelling consistency. But I found that I must learn how the Sangam era relates to the Chola, the dates of the Vandara migrations along with the writing of various Vedas and portions of Ramayana, the correct spelling (and definition!) of sivacharya as well as whether or not it ought to be capitalized and etcetera.
I have made adjustments to improve some very offensive language that was in the article when I found it: if you look in the History you will see that this faith had been referred to as a "cult" of "devotees" who "prostrate themselves" before an "idol" of a deity who dances on graves "with demons". Technically accurate (so that one not fluent in English might not notice a problem) but the connotions are extremely insulting and absolutely not NPOV. I'm reminded of my friend from Kerala who asked me "You think our God has six arms like a bug???"
I'm clumsy and slow with this. I need knowledgeable help. Do you speak Tamil? Do you have access to reference books - NOT the internet, but books? I have written to Stewart Hoover, a University of Colorado professor who specializes in media and religion, to ask if he knew anyone who might be interested in and capable of research in Tamil but he has not yet replied. I would greatly welcome your help and input (with citations). If all you really want to do is correct me for lack of references please know that this article has already been sharply criticized for same, and that many many articles in Wikipedia are similarly short of citations. As you can see, I've put a tag at the top of the article stating the lack of references and asking for the attention of people who can do the research. We're working on it and doing the best we can - perfection comes in time, God willing.
~ Otterpops 13:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for getting in touch. I am delighted to know that you are with the League. I am currently working with another of your colleagues on the Ganesha article, which is an example of a relatively well-referenced article that is being polished up during peer review. On that article we have set up a system for the process which you can look at here. I am one of a number of regular editors on Hinduism articles and have access to books related to Shiva and related topics that can be used to provide strong academic references. I have recently decided to focus on a few articles in the Shiva group that need work in a coordinated way. At present all of the articles in this complex, such as Shiva, Shaivism, History of Shaivism. and Rudra are in very bad shape and are filled with misinformation. You may want to read over all four of those articles as a first step. To prevent forking, the first step is to determine what should be where. I have asked a couple of the editors who work on Hinduism articles to assist in thinking about cross-article organization. Your mention of Tamil, by the way, suggests that whoever put some of the information into the article has a regional focus, which explains some things. Shiva is a pan-Hindu god, and the Tamil materials represent one particular regional perspective on him. Many of the Hinduism articles have problems with overgeneralization of regional beliefs and practices. All of the oldest source material is in Sanskrit. I have some knowledge of Sanskrit but not of Tamil. Let's work together to improve what we can, but take everything you see now with a grain of salt. Buddhipriya 14:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Trimurti

Thank you for your consideration. I can't recall why I was looking at the article at that time, but I was just noting something that seemed incorrect. Hinduism is not, unfortunately, a subject where I am particularly knowledgeable or familiar with the sources, but I do know Christian theology fairly well, and what the article said didn't match that. That is all I can say about it though. No doubt the disproportionate Western emphasis on Trimurti is a result of trying to somehow relate Hindu and Christian ideas that didn't really correspond well. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

After I wrote that I remembered a discussion I had around that time trying to explain the ideas of homoousious and hypostasis in the Christian sense and how it was distinct from the idea of a single being presenting itself in different personae or roles. Again, that was mostly from the Christian side on my end of things, again a case of it not matching what I was being told. Whether or not the genuine Hindu tradition was being represented to me I cannot say. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I know of no such project, unless it's the general WikiProject Religion. Assuring NPOV across all religious articles is one of their stated missions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sameshwari Link

The first guideline to Indian classical music come from Samveda. It is with reference to hymns of Samveda that all later treatises discuss music. The Samic scale is different from later musical scales. Dr. Lalmani Misra deciphered the notes used in Samgana and created Raga Sameshwari a vocal rendition of which has been made by Dr. Laxmi Ganesh Tewari. The notations of Sameshwari are given on website www.omenad.com based on a lecture on Sameshwari by Dr. Misra preserved on audio cassette. The site also offers scholarly articles on Indian classical music that refer to Sam Veda. As the page has been started by you, you have the first right to maintain its integrity. Do add the link if you find it relevent. Ghanonmatta 15:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Namaste, and thank you for getting in touch. I am not sure what article you are referring to. Can you please give me a link so I can look at it? The only edits I recall being involved with regarding music were on Vedas. Is that the page you are referring to? Buddhipriya 16:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring to article on Vedas. You might check up http://www.omenad.net/articles/BSV_samintro.htm. Thanks Ghanonmatta 04:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The only edits that I made related to this issue on Vedas were related to citing which topics were generally included as upavedas according to the standard lists provided in Apte and Monier-Williams. I have no particular background in this subject. I would say that the web site [6] is interesting, but it by itself would not qualify as a WP:RS according to WP:EL as it is a self-published web site. What it says may be true, but the citation process would probably require something stronger. The inclusion of the upaveda topics on Vedas is not intended to treat any of them at length, and my personal view is that probably all of them should be cut, as the list is subject to various debates about what is in or out. I recommend that you make this case on the article for the subject of music if you feel that it is important. Detail of this type may well be relevant for the article on Indian music or related pages for that subject. Buddhipriya 18:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking up the site. The article is an excerpt from Bharatiya Sangeet Vadya a book that some readers hail as 'sixth veda', next in importance to Bharat's Natya Shastra because this book has traced the evolution of music and musical instruments right from the Vedic period when to "provide rhythmic accompaniment to samgan a skin-head instrument bhumi-dundubhi was used. A pit was dug in the yajna campus and covered with ox-skin. This was beaten with the tail of ox." The book traces evolution of all Indian classical and folk instruments down to modern Electronic instruments. Unfortunately till this work published by Bharatiya Jnanpith in 1973, 2002,05 becomes available to reading public in English, the knowledge it contains shall remain unrecognized. I thought that as Sam-Veda is considered to be source of Indian music, a reference to this article might have helped the readers in understanding the relationship between Samic and modern notes. Thanks again.Ghanonmatta 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I do not have the background in this area to be able to assess the specific issues. If you can provide a specific passage in the Samaveda that covers this, I would be happy to read it over. A secondary source explaining what the Samaveda says may not be as effective as citing the primary source of Samaveda itself. Similar issues often come up when people make analysis of what Rig Veda contains without providing Rig Veda citations. The analysis may be correct, but it is not verifiable unless primary sources are noted. Buddhipriya 16:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are so right in asking for a citation from Sam Veda itself. However Sam Veda collects hymns from Riga Veda so that they can be sung. As the whole Vedic tradition was oral, instructions on sound, pronunciation or notes would be passed on orally. The lyrics of a song can seldom inform the reader about its musical composition. The primary sources in this case would not be Veda-s but treatises that make commentaries. Naradiya Shiksha, Sangeet Ratnakar of Sharangdev and Bharat's Natya Shastra are considered to be authority for Indian music evolving from Sam Veda. Ghanonmatta

The above edit was apparently this diff: [7] by IP user 59.95.102.129.

Regarding the content of the issue, I recommend that you take the subject to the talk page for the article so other editors can participate. Buddhipriya 02:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edits...

Firstly, kindly refrain from presuming that you can dictate editorial policy. Secondly, as I both wrote this paragraph, and provided the citations supporting the six branches of Yoga, including Tantra, I suspect whether or not I make changes to the middle of a sentence when I disagree with a deletion edit the content of which has material support, is my perogative, no? Thank you and Jai. Empacher 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. The statement that you have been working on related to Tantric Yoga is disputed by other editors ([8]) so it would be helpful if you would raise the issue on the talk page for the article. More clear use of citations in the article would be one way to separate out material that is under challenge. Buddhipriya 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

One editor does not constitute "editors", nor does it constitute a challenge when the reference material supports the inclusion. Everyone has an opinion. Let's agreee to disagree, depite academic support for the inclusion. Empacher 22:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Since both I and the other editor do not agree with the inclusion, there are currently two different editors who have objected to the inclusion of tantric yoga in the list given in the lead. I have placed a request on the talk page for the article asking that this issue be taken up as a separate matter so that sourcing can be clarified. If you feel that further discussion on this is needed, I hope you will participate on the talk page for the article. Thanks again for dialog on this matter. Buddhipriya 22:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to the edit in Shiva article.

Check out Khandoba article. Khandoba is believed to Shiva, also referred as 'Martand Bhairava' in Malhari Mahatmya, the chief source of Khandoba legend, apart from folk songs. Bhairava as u kmow is an aspect of Shiva.'The name Martand, designating in Vedic sources the sun or sun god- The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi By Antonio Rigopoulos pg.111. Also, Khandoba is our family deity. Plz trust on the info about Him.

Though as stated in 'Indian Sociology Through Ghurye: Indian Sociology Through Ghurye: A Dictionary By S. Devadas Pillai', Ghurye first tried to identify with Skanda in his 'Men and Gods' on just the fact that 'Champa Shasthi(birthday of Khandoba) coincides with Skanda Shasthi' but then in next book 'Anatomy', he set aside this idea.

In 'Khandoba:Ursprung,Geschiche und Umvelt von Pastoralem Gotheiten in Maharashtra, Wiesbaden 1976(German with English Synopsis)pg. 180-98, "Khandoba is a local deity in Maharashtra and been Sanskritised as an incarnation of Shiva."

Also Khandoba in all his 12 main temples is worshipped as a Lingam. Mostly twin lingas one for Him and the other for Mhalsa, his first wife. Ever heard Skanda worshipped as Lingam? --Redtigerxyz 13:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved the issue to Shiva discussion page.--Redtigerxyz 14:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your removal of sourced content can be discussed further on the talk page for the article. Khandoba is a regional deity who is a good example of how regional deities often were assimilated to other major figures. In his case, some groups identify him with Shiva, others with Skanda. Buddhipriya 15:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warnning

However I did not "add" content to Adi Shankara, I only put the Adi Shankar's name in Gurmukhi i.e. ਆਦਿ ਸ਼ਂਕਰ ...In my humble opinion that does not qualify for vandalism...Thanks Jon Ascton

Thanks for getting in touch. Are you are referring to this edit by an IP user? [9] If so, the best approach would be to add the translation into Gurmukhi using the LANG template for it, which is how translations into various languages are normally handled. The Gurmukhi is not Sanskrit, which is what the IAST tag following the original text is for. If you feel this needs further discussion, I recommend that you take it up on the talk page for the article, and to ensure that continuity of the discussion can be had you may want to log on when editing rather than using an anonymous IP account for this matter. See also: [10] Buddhipriya 19:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Chakra

You said: I object to the addition of unsourced material to the article, and to changes made to sourced material on Hindu traditions. The article currently does not use standard citation sections according to Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout, which calls for systematic use of the Notes and References sections. My effort to add these sections and restructure existing notes to conform to the layout has been reverted. I request opinion by other editors on these changes. The article is currently poorly sourced, and enforcement of better sourcing standards is needed in order to improve the quality of this article. Buddhipriya 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the edits you reverted. Poor form to revert without having the courtesy to inform of your intention to do so. I contend with your unfounded assertion of my inclusion of unsourced material within this article: little new information or content was added. Though a rigorous restructuring of article was instituted, augmented by a number of headings populated with content from information aleady contained within the body of the article. In addition, unsavoury hierarchical paradigms were written out. I invite dialogue to resolve differences.

Namaste in agape

Walking my talk in Beauty

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. I recommend that further discussion take place on the talk page for the article. Buddhipriya 19:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite

I totally agree that the articles on Kundalini and chakra need more rigorous sources. Though I'm not sure that I can supply them. I seem to remember that I stuck some fact tags, reduced some EL's and generally removed language that seemed to me to be poorly sourced. I am not an expert on either topic and am not that familiar with the literature, but am always willing to read articles from the perspective of a casual reader. In short, I have to think about it, don't have a lot of time (mostly am involved with trying to help resolve whether or not Siddha Yoga is a branch of kashmir shaivism or it's just related. I'll think about the invite, and pitch in if I can help. Keep up the good work!!!!

TheRingess (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thanks for helping out on the SY discussion. You seem to be very busy and the effort you put into the discussion is much appreciated. Also I think input from a neutral bystander, unfamiliar with the lineage, was needed. I have rewritten the intro to the article, not because I think it's much more accurate than the previous, but to offer a compromise. Have a look when you can and see if you think the new intro might satisfy all sides of the discussion. TheRingess (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks once more. Only speaking for myself I appreciate your input. I'm going to leave off replying on the talk page for a little while, simply because I'm curious as to what the other interested editors will say from this point on. My own opinion about the article is that it is still barely more than a stub. I've thought that the intro has needed expansion for a long time and have never really liked calling SY a "spiritual organization". I think now that the term new religious movement is more appropriate and more descriptive. I also like including some of their tenets/teachings to give the casual reader at least a cursory understanding of how SY is similar to and how it differs from other religions. As I mentioned on the talk page, calling KS and AV "primary philosophical bases" is my own wording and may not be completely accurate (I wished to avoid using exact SY terminology). What do you think? Once again, thanks, take care.TheRingess (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on the very limited reference check that I reported on the talk page for the article, my impression is that Siddha Yoga is a new religious movement that includes mentions of Kashmir Shaivism as one of the influences that it claims have affected it. It is impossible to tell if that claim is true without examining the teachings of Siddha Yoga, which I have not done. It is a somewhat surprising claim on the face of things, because Kashmir Shaivism was a very abstract philosophical movement chiefly notable for adopting an extreme monism (non-dual) approach. It is considered a non-Vedic school because it does not cite traditional Vedic authority as its basis. Time-wise, it basically dwindled in the north about 900 years ago and so a recent claim of a revival based on it is something that I would be interested to learn more about. Many of the new religious movements make claims of being "based on" Hindu scriptures which have little or nothing to do with their actual current teachings, and I do not know if that is the case here. I do not wish to intrude on the article in any way, but I was curious because it appeared to be claiming to be a new branch of Shaivism. As far as I can tell the phrase "siddha yoga" is a neologism, but to be sure I would need to do a more extensive reference check. At this point the burden of proof is on the propounders of the view that a concept called "siddha yoga" is not a neologism. Buddhipriya 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points all. The sense I get from your comments is that basically the article still does not give the reder enough context for understanding how closely SY follows KS and AV. Unfortunately, I do not think that I am qualified to included appropriately sourced material that might give the reader a better understanding. I can pretty much only give the perspective of how SY sees itself.TheRingess (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with your approach, and if over time there is insistance on WP:RS things may gradually become more clear. If the article mainly sticks to what the organization says about itself, materials provided by the organization are WP:RS. As soon as claims are made about what Kashmir Shaivism says, those would need to be sourced from different WP:RS such as standard works on Hinduism. Claims that "siddha yoga" is not a neologism require proof, since the reference check has come up negative so far. Buddhipriya 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

Thanks so much for the cookie! If you need any more help with IAR, just let me (or anyone else who spends way too much time at the IAR talk page) know! :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the cookie too. Feel free to drop me a note too if you find more weird interpretations of IAR. I have Kundalini watchlisted, but unfortunately, I really don't know a lot about the subject, so I may miss stuff. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Question for you

Hi Buddhipriya, Would you mind taking a look at Pranayama? There's a confused (to me) explanation of the literal translation of Pranayama in the first two paragraphs. I don't know Sanskrit, so any clarification would be appreciated. If you look on the talk page, you'll see that I mention removal of one unreferenced explanation that needs more linguistic expertise. I was going on common sense and the smell test in deleting the statement that " 'prana' is cognate with Chinese 'chi'. " If I was mistaken, I would be happy to have someone put that back. I found a reference that does compare the two as having similar meanings, and inserted that.

I've also added some references for the common usage/translation of the word by prominent and well-respected teachers of Patanajali, since that's really the main use of the word. That raises the issue of how prominent exponents of yoga use the word, and tranlsate it (which is most relevant in this case) vs. the literal meaning. Both are relevant there, but the article needs a clearer literal translation and breakdown of the word (prana, yama, ayama, etc.) in a way that makes more sense. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath talk 04:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick look and it seems that this page is another one of the articles like Kundalini and Chakra where there is a quite a bit of Western New Age material passing as Hindu wisdom. I recently have taken a little interest in the articles for Kundalini and Chakra which have the same sort of problems. With all of these pages there is little understanding of the source materials. Would you be willing to help me out by watch listing all of these pages and assist me in demanding a higher quality of sourcing for all of them? I find that when I have demanded WP:RS not all editors are eager to rise to the challenge. The literal translation of the Sanskrit is basically prāṇa (breath, respiration, the "vital airs", etc.) + yāma (cessation). It is a technical term used widely in yoga literature, particularly some tantrika texts. The article has an unsourced discussion of concepts related to it rather than a definition of it. Buddhipriya 04:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Where does 'ayama', meaning expansion, come from then? That's one interpretation that I haven't seen in thirty years of daily practice and study of pranayama, but I well understand that different schools teach differently. The language issue aside, these articles are all tricky because yogic concepts are not necessarily 'scientific', and the leading experts are the renowned exponents of yoga (just as Patanjali was in his day). And there's alot of confusion and debate over who the 'experts' are. I'm sticking with references of renowned and more universally accepted, rather than the latest popular yoga or new age teacher. ॐ Priyanath talk 05:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The "ayama" etymology has no clear basis. I think that it is probably an attempt to deal with the plural use of prana in the first term of the compound, but I am still looking for a source to prove it. Look at the edit history and watch for how it got in there. I personally find most of the New Age literature to be academically weak. If you are willing to help demand quality in the references, together we can at least make clear what is New Age and what is Hindu. Buddhipriya 05:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll watch those other pages also. It is important to include the view of prominent yoga traditions that have their roots in India, which is what I've done. I don't know if you consider them 'academic', but they are authorities, in a tradition where authority is often based more on realization than pure academia. The new agey approach is a different story, as you know. ॐ Priyanath talk 05:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rudra found a citation in Macdonell (p. 185) to prāṇa + āyāma and defines it as "m. suspension of breath (sts. pl.)". This is in the ballpark with the other variant I found in Mishra. So I take it that there are multiple etymologies out there, so we should keep hunting for more WP:RS. Buddhipriya 20:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Vedas

Regarding your reverts of my edits, I understand wikipedia policies for citations, however please note that the introduction is essentially a roundup of all the details that are covered in the following sections of the page, and as such do not need explicit citations.

If no one writes "unsourced content" that ties together "sources", Wikipedia as it is today will not exist.

Specifically, if we discuss my changes, I have added two sentences describing that there are four Vedas and their divisions (which is elaborated in the section on Four Vedas with all the sources cited). What the Vedas mean to people is simply a descriptive sentence and is therefore NOR.

If you have specific objections to the changes, let's discuss. Regards Savyasaachi 15:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The changes you made deleted citations to WP:RS and added material that flatly contradicts them. If you wish to discuss this content further, please do so on the talk page for the article so other editors can have the benefit of your thinking. Buddhipriya 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Kundalini

Could you finish the first sentence please. Aeuio 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, but can you clarify what sentence you mean? Buddhipriya 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The first. See page history (I think you missed my edit.)Aeuio 20:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check it now. I added a very generic definition from Flood to get a citation on the opening sentence. Don't hesitate to discuss further on the talk page for the article. Because this article is subject to controvery, my sense is that it will be best to take a long-term approach to improving article quality by slowing adding solid citations and removing WP:FRINGE claims. Buddhipriya 20:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Perfect edit I think. When I read the first paragraph I was a bit confused so I edit it. (To me it was saying "Kundalini is a word...its believed to be coiled up in the body...) Now it gives a better intro to the Kundalini article. Thanks Aeuio 20:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha query

Hi! Ganesha is very much ready for FAC. Is it still being actively seen by the League? When do you plan for the FAC? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. The League has only just begun working on it. I have no particular time frame in mind, as the main goal is simply to get it to the best possible condition. I would expect that the careful work being done now will continue for at least another month. Buddhipriya 03:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tirumantiram

I wanted to drop by and say Hello. It seems that there are three English translations of the Tirumantiram in my local reference library, Suzzallo. I will look into the Siddha Yoga reference and report. I appreciated the spirit of your comments on that talk page. As for the Tamil source material, I am helpless since my Tamil is zero. I look forward to digging into other compound Sanskrit terms as I have a tad in that area and contact with a couple of experts who could deliver the more pristine goods if needed. Sadly, my time is limited, but more later and friendly regards. -Vritti 04:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. If you can get references for the texts, then we can put those references on the talk page to assist others in getting the books via interlibrary loans or other methods. Try to get complete bibliographic citations if you can. I have been looking into the role of the Tirumantiram as well and have added a few comments about it on the article for History_of_Shaivism#Nayanars which is in very bad shape. I have no Tamil either, but we have access to Tamil editors via Wikipedia. Just seeing three side-by-side English translations would be informative. Buddhipriya 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the three English translations of Tirumantiram. All three used the same translation by Dr. B. Natarajan (1979). In the Siddha Yoga article I cited the version by the Ramakrishna Matt. It included the Tamil, a transliteration and Dr. Natarajan's translation. It was the most complete and straightforward. Since the work was translated, I am less than confident I did the notes and ref correctly. I think the style is consistent, but I used the translator's name in the note and the full citation in the ref. Couldn't find guidelines for this in WP:MOS. If you see a need to change this, please do. There is an article in JSTOR about the issues related to the dating of the work. When I get time to read it, there may be more to add. I've been appreciating your cleanup on a number of articles. Nice work. -Vritti 06:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for commenting on the Tantra peer review.

Do you think it would be a useful exercise to take your comments and build them into a "To Do" list?

I'm thinking that having a To Do list on that article might give more incentive to improve it.

Whaddya think?

TheRingess (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I have avoided getting involved with the article because it is so intertwined with the Western new religious movements. I feel that if anything were to be done seriously with it, it would take multiple editors with different backgrounds working as a team. Would you be willing to spearhead such an effort? What small contributions I could make would be limited to a few of the historical sources and some of the academic literature, which takes a very different approach to the material. The idea of having a "to do" list is interesting, as I have not worked as part of a team in that way and it sounds appealing. I am increasingly disenchanted with the combative aspects of Wikipedia and find few articles where any sort of teamwork seems to be the norm. Buddhipriya 07:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner on this. Regarding spearheading, I'm willing to help out (mostly proofreading for clarity since I'm not a scholar of Tantra), but I'll have to think about what's involved in spearheading an effort. My impression is that there is enough material out there to make this a good article. I too get frustrated, but you can't let the battles get you down. I think having "To Do" lists builds teamwork. It let's long time editors know that there are still areas of improvement for the article and it gives new users a sense that someone is trying to organize the editing process. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, there's no real reason why the Tantra article couldn't be developed into a featured article (or at least good article status). I think that I might leave a note on the article's talk page inviting interested editors to form a team with the intent of bringing it to FA status. We'll see where it goes.TheRingess (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:Tantra#Team Tantra. TheRingess (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Maleabroad

He seems to be active again. See my ANI posting. Perhaps it's time to contact his school and/or get his lab range-blocked. Abecedare 02:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would support doing both actions concurrently. Buddhipriya 02:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Tom Dawson would be the person to write to (unless we decide to write to a faculty member, though the real life repercussions for maleabraod in that case may be too grave) the next time a sock appears. Do you know if there is standard "form" letter for this purpose somewhere on wikipedia ? Abecedare 02:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Abuse_reports which includes a procedure to get help from a Wikipedia investigator, who can act as a third party in the contact. I would start by getting some opinions from them on what to do next. I would not contact the university in a way that could lead Maleabroad back to you, of course. There are three "Contactors" listed on the procedure page that cover Canada, so perhaps asking them for opinion would be a good next step. Regarding repercussions, I think the point is that we are trying to prevent further abuse, and if contacting the faculty is the necessary action to get that result, it should be done. Tom Dawson appears to be a technical person who may be helpful in confirming the activity, but an administrative person who can enforce changes will probably need to be involved. Wikipedia privacy procedures are the key issue to understand, and that is why I would get someone experienced in these contacts into the loop before launching on an action plan. Measure twice, cut once.

Here are potential Candadian "Contactors" (I would recommend using a phone contactor as it is more likely to get noticed):

1. Cnota (talk · contribs) Contact: phone (US) and email worldwide. Here to help!
2. Colin Keigher (talk · contribs) Contact: phone (N. America), e-mail, direct to certain ISPs (I work for a few)
3. Rgenung (talk · contribs) Contact: Canada/US phone, email, possible postal in North America
4. CyclePat (talk · contribs) AMA upon request. Phone: Canada. Email: Yes Postal: I hope not! (Since Dec 2006)
5. Arbiteroftruth (talk · contribs) Contact: Phone (US only) and E-Mail (English and Chinese speaking countries)
6. Nick125 (talk · contribs) Contact: Phone (US/Canada), Email (English), US Postal. I've got way too much free time :-)

Buddhipriya 03:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done on keeping up with these. I've been following the notification page but you two always have matters well in hand. I fully support contacting the university, and I would suggest that going to the faculty is indeed entirely appropriate. Universities have strict rules on hate speech and discrimination, and frown on using their resources for spreading it. Don't forget that this guy is just a kid, really, and apparently one who needs a bit of real world exposure to dent his Internet God persona. Orpheus 05:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A thought - exams have just finished in Northern Hemisphere universities, correct? Maybe that explains the recent lull in activity. Orpheus 05:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping this issue on your watchlist, as many hands make light work. There are still a lot of his socks that have not yet been blocked, so if you have time on your hands, you could pick away at some of them. Interesting point about the exams, you may be right. Buddhipriya 05:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Unclear what this message is

Buddhipriya: Now, ban the site of Gabriel Pradiipaka. It is a formal request coming directly from him. Then, watch what will happen. Just do it, please, and behold 200.117.55.47 05:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

Diffs related to creation of the above content: [11] (201.252.222.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) and associated vandalism of my user page: [12]. [13] (200.117.55.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) Buddhipriya 05:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop moaning about vandalism and ban his site as requested above. Then, you can delete all and behold what will happen. Sometimes one should act wisely, really. You'll reap the fruits of your own actions, be sure 200.117.31.232 05:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

The above unsigned message was added via this diff: [14] by 200.117.31.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Buddhipriya 05:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Just ban the Gabriel Pradiipaka's site such as you said (google his URL). The reasons are link-spamming and all those lies. Well, if they are not lies but the Truth, nothing will happen after banning his site. If not so, something will occur, Buddhipriya. It is easy to delete, mock at other people and so on, but difficult is facing the fruits of one's actions, undoubtedly. Just do it if you are certain you are behaving in a right manner. And I sign this message because I firmly believe in the power and justice of God 200.117.31.232 05:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC). That's it, Buddhipriya. Now it is your turn.

How amusing. Reminds me a lot of this. Orpheus 07:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop talking, you and your friends, and do it if you are certain you are being fair with my posts. I have direct permission from Gabriel Pradiipaka to ask you this. He does not care at all if his name is or not here, or if his site is banned or not, because the entire Wikipedia is irrelevant to him. Anyway, I am here struggling. And I defy you to ban his site. Do it and see what happens if you were unfair and behaved in a bad manner regarding him. There is a God, friend, who knows all that is in everyone's mind. You can deceive others but not Him. You know, Wikipedia is not wicked in itself. In fact, it is a great project and vision. However, people like you make other people like Gabriel Pradiipaka indifferent to write an article here and help the community. People like you, in the name of promoting your own country (because this is what you are doing the whole time) are ruining the great vision of James, no doubt about it. Nationalism is healthy when a war is declared and so forth, but it is a cheap thing when applied to spiritual teachings. Kashmir Shaivism belongs to the entire human kind, believe it or not. All of us have our miseries, but when it comes to spirituality, there must be a "stop here". This is the lesson you will be taught by Him if going on and on with your bad behavior and attitude. And this my IP in case you feel I am hesitating 200.117.225.42 10:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen you were deleting other links to the Gabriel Pradiipaka's site under the pretext of link-spamming. This is a blatant lie and you know. You are a vandal and deserve the fate of a vandal. Just wait and see what God will bring to your life. There is a God, man. You will not forget the lesson for the rest of your existence, be sure! You can hide from me behind a phone line, but you cannot hide from Him. And my IP again, in case you think I am joking. I do not joke when it comes to vandals like you. To lie regarding sacred matters like these is a grave sin and to try to harm His devotees is something really wrong. Gabriel Pradiipaka is a compassionate person, no doubt, but I, his protector, am not. And you will see soon what I mean. Hopefully you will be so bold as you were to delete his name from Wikipedia, man 201.252.212.213 11:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. If you plan on using Wikipedia more, please read Wikipedia:Etiquette which explains basic rules of how to interact with others. One of the points listed there says: "Please register yourself and sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!), unless you have some excellent reasons not to do so." Building constructive relationships here takes time, and using an account rather than an anonymous IP address would be one step you could take to establish more productive editing collaborations. Buddhipriya 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yum...

Thanks for the treat. A pleasure to make your acquaintance.--Nemonoman 11:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My edit to Ganesha

Sorry about that. I didnt know you wanted the drug to stay on the disambiguation page. -Use the force ^{(Talk * Contribs)} 15:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. This is not the first time that the drug has come up in an inappropriate way related to this article. Buddhipriya 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Balji Nath Pandit

That page cannot be speedy deleted, since it has been on wikipedia for over 2 years. You can send it to AFD if you do not agree over the articles notability. For speedy deletion, the article must have been created within 3 days--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I was not clear on the policy. Buddhipriya 21:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that's true. WP:SPEEDY contains the criteria for speedy deletion. I've asked the original poster on his talk page to point out exactly where it says the 3 days bit - I'll let you know when I find out. Orpheus 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the AFD is complete and I have noticed no errors.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ageo020, the "3 day" assertion is absolutely incorrect. An article that meets WP:CSD may be deleted at any time, there is no restriction regarding when it was created. Where did you hear that? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Khilafat Osmania 06:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My reply [15]. Khilafat Osmania 06:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Saw your note

Hey there. I'll put those articles on my watch list and help when I can. I too don't know how much effort I can put into the Tantra article, I thought it would be an interesting experiment to form a team for a specific article with a specific goal. There's no hurry on it anyway. The tantras article seems poorly sourced. I also doubt the veracity of some statements such as "Hindus consider the Tantras as Śruti revealed by Lord Ṣiva in the form of Svacchandanath...". It seems to me that given the numereous sects/branches of Hinduism they probably don't all view the tantras the same way, some sects might not even have any beliefs regarding the tantras. A statement like that needs heavy disambiguation to show which branches/sects hold those particular beliefs (with appropriate sources). I think we could go a long way towards improving the tantra article by including a well researched, well sourced discussion of the tantras themselves (of course, trying to avoid the "elephant"-"blind men" trap). Do you know any good books that discuss the tantras?

Regarding the new religious movements, I can help out with mediation if discussions become stalled. I don't think I can speak for how others might react to the label. Just look at the SY page. I've been a student of SY for 20 years (although I've never read the main scriptures listed, they aren't required reading, and I'm mostly a reader of Sci Fi) and I never heard that anyone objected to the use of the word Hindu when referring to SY. Go figure. I never thought of it as a new religious movement either, but after the discussions on the talk page, it seems an appropriate description. I think you pointed out, that India has a long history of producing new religious movements. The long and short of it is that now the introduction to the article is, in my opinion, light years better than it was.

Take care.

TheRingess (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)