Jump to content

Talk:Sathya Sai Baba: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 34 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 11.
Line 86: Line 86:


Please, correct the passage.
Please, correct the passage.

== Please, correct the page ==
and insert *[http://www.radiosai.org/pages/thought.asp].
Until now I have NOT understood why this link disturbs anyone.
:Austerlitz -- [[Special:Contributions/88.72.15.156|88.72.15.156]] ([[User talk:88.72.15.156|talk]]) 16:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:18, 7 November 2008

Former featured article candidateSathya Sai Baba is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 1, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
May 14, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 3, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate


Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this page

Impossible Resolution

I firmly KNOW that Sathya Sai Baba is, in fact, an Avatar, just like Krishna. For those who do not have the experience needed to afirm this, I make a question: what IF it is true that He IS a manifestation of God as human? IF this is true, THEN this article will never be "encyclopedic" as it should, because in this case, to be a good article, it should mention, clearly and with all simplicity: Sathya Sai Baba is a Purna Avatar - God in human form - which came to restablish Dharma on Earth.


As per hinduism the only Avataar in KaliYuga is Kalki!

"Now we have Sathya Geetha in the place of Sai Geetha"

The sentence above is taken from the article. It is not appropriately marked as a quote (if that's what it is), nor is the source indicated. Therefore, a reader familiar with the punctuation conventions must come to the conclusion that the author of that particular passage is referring to him/herself. (A reader who is not familiar with punctuation will simply be confused as to WHO exactly is the "we" referred to.)

Please, correct the passage.

Please, correct the page

and insert *[1]. Until now I have NOT understood why this link disturbs anyone.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.15.156 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]