Talk:Hinduism

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9

You can contribute at Hinduism related Collaboration of the week. Any registered wikipedian can nominate an article and can vote for the nominated articles. Voting also indicates interest in contributing during the weekly collaboration cycle. Every Friday, the votes are tallied, and the winner will be promoted for a week to potential contributors.

About the heading =

Well, yes I agree with you. But Vedic and Santan did originate from Hinduism. User:Ujjwal Krishna

Keep it Hindu. Vedic, Sanatan tradition are different from present Hinduism. For all these traditions write separate articles. Especially in vedic times there was not Casteism and Untochability like today's Caste based Hinduism. 170.252.80.2 18:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Sanatana dharma is sometimes used to refer to modern Hinduism, but there is no need to include such minor details in the introduction to the article. HeBhagawan 03:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC).

If anyone disagrees with this, please explain why. Remember: The introductory paragraph of the article is only supposed to give a few key facts. Alternate names of the religion, especially those which are not used very commonly, are not KEY facts in my opinion. Let's keep the intro paragraph simple. Thanks to all who contribute and make suggestions! HeBhagawan 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The starting paragraph says that Hinduism "is a set of religious traditions that originated mainly in the Indian subcontinent". Shouldn't it say that it "is a religion that originated mainly in the Indian subcontinent"? I mean, it's simpler, to-the-point, and makes it unambiguous that this article is dealing with a religion. Splashprince 14:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think?

See: Hinduism in India. I plan to create the articles listed there and then create the template. Would appreciate some help. I've created a template User:Babub/New template2 to use for these articles. ^Babub→Talk 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, Babub, We all try that misconceptions about our religion are removed. Aupmanyav 04:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a great idea for an article! It would be very good to have similar articles for Hinduism in other countries as well. However, it makes sense to start with India. HeBhagawan 12:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheism in Hinduism ^Babub→Talk 03:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

I'm supposed to discuss it before I add it in, so discuss!

http://www.hinduwiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Reincarnation

Unless my "find" button is broken, there is no mention of the word "reincarnation" in this article other than as a link. There is one casual mention of the word "rebirth" (samsara) but it is not elaborated on. There is another mention of "samsara," but it is redefined to mean "householder's stage." I looked under "reincarnation" to see if Hindus actually believe in the concept, and sure enough here is what it says: "This doctrine is a central tenet within the majority of Indian religious traditions such as Yoga, Vaishnavism, Jainism and Sikhism." So somehow a central tenet of Hinduism was not explicitly mentioned on this page...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marty8 (talk • contribs) .

A lot about hinduism is missing in the article.nids(♂) 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And the problem is that there is already too much information in the article! Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

the size of the article is down to 'acceptable' again, and there can well be a brief statement on reincarnation. dab (ᛏ) 09:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess we can remove the details of Shat Astik (Vedic) Darshans. Afterall, they are not the only Hindu philosophies and undue importance is given to them in this particular article. We also have Six Schools of Shaivism, six for Vaishnavism#Schools_of_Vaishnavism, one for Shaktism and some for Tantrik sects too. Most of these are unrelated to Vedic Darshans. nids(♂) 12:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What is this article about, Hinduism or Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism. Let them say about themselves. They don't need our help. Aupmanyav 02:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And nids, what is this about Vedic darshans, as if Hinduism is Vedas only? Aupmanyav 02:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced

The majority of contemporary Hindus follow the Vedanta philosophy and believe in a cosmic spirit called Brahman, that is worshipped in many forms such as Vishnu, Shiva or Shakti.

What is the source of this statement. Has there been a census on the numbers for different sects of hinduism.nids(♂) 21:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Babub, first you filed an AfD. Now, why do you want to Push your POV in the Hinduism Article. Why cant you understand that there is much more to Hinduism than a single philosophy.nids(♂) 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

See i am not even objecting to this line although it is unsourced and perhaps wrong too.nids(♂) 14:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

^Babub→Talk 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Even if you want to point out that many Hindus follow Vedanta, you should not use the term "the majority" unless you have a specific citation. "Majority" means "More than 50%"--so it is a pretty specific number.HeBhagawan 13:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Trollish Propaganda

Nids, why do you want to push your nonsense here? Show me one reputable source for your rantings. Such actions of yours show you are here just to push the propaganda of nationalism and distort Hinduism for your nefarious ends. ^Babub→Talk 13:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you please go through the comments on the RfC debate that you filed.nids(♂) 13:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I never filed any "RfC". If you mean the AfD, why don't you go throught the article Atheism in Hinduism which I edited based on the AfD? If you are here to seriously contribute to this encyclopedia, why don't you do some constructive edits to Atheism in Hinduism, nastika and other related philosophical issues? Why do you want to push your pov in the main article??? ^Babub→Talk 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i will improve them. But why are you so against in mentioning them in this article. How is it my POV by the way. There are more than a few philosophies that were atheistic. If you cant acknowledge them, than its whose POV.nids(♂) 14:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I am not against mentiioning it in the article, but it should not be in the intro because, 1. They are a historical viewpoint held by some schools of Hindu philosophy but still not as a final doctrine (atheism is not the main thrust of these schools, but moksha is). 2. The present day "Hindu atheists" are mostly of the jingoistic variety who live the imaginary "way of life" world. My reply to 2. is: religion=way of life! Anyway to get back to the point, it can be mentioned in the "Philosophy" section but not in the intro, because 99.999% of Hindus are not atheist. You can contact any Hindu scholar in the world and ask him/her if he/she is an atheist. ^Babub→Talk 14:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can anyhow prove that 99.999% of the Hindus in the world are not atheists, than you can please remove this from intro. Till than, let this one line remain there.nids(♂) 14:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No no, my dear nids, the onus is upon you to prove that 99.999% of Hindus are not theists. Nevertheless, I've mentioned about the article in the Hinduism#Purva Mimamsa section. ^Babub→Talk 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not. When we are discussing the philosophy part. And leave this babub. There are too many things that are unsourced. How will you provide the source of above statement. If you want to move this to the middle of the article, than i may well delete the unsourced part in the above discussion.nids(♂) 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you also mention in it Samkhya part, which never turned theistic.nids(♂) 14:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to be clever, you have to give the source saying all Hindus are not theistic. (FYI, even Buddhists worship gods and are not atheists).^Babub→Talk 14:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats an interesting statement. So, i just have to prove that all hindus are not theistic. Ok. Will do that and then add it in the intro section. Fine. How about the statement above which says that the majority of hindus are vedanta followers. Which Means no place for Shaivites, vaishnavites or even shaktas. Do you think that should remain in the intro ection unsourced.nids(♂) 14:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you get off my back??? Do not try to frame me as a Vedanta pov-guy, bcos I am not!! ^Babub→Talk 14:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have simply asked you a question. And i dont think that you have edited anything that is non-compatible with Vedanta philosophy.nids(♂) 14:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And the thing is that you dont want to accept anything which is non-vedanta but Hindu. By the way, does vedanta allow you to bury a dead instead of cremating him.nids(♂) 14:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you are older than a teen. Am I right? Look at this page carefully: Wikipedia:What is a troll. ^Babub→Talk 16:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong about my age. Well are you defining yourself?? I dont see much difference.nids(♂) 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you also know that by using certain diction, you have completely lost the moral ground.nids(♂) 16:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! Trolls who just make some nonsense edits have no place in an encyclopedia project like this one. We're dealing with content here and we don't need verbal garbage here. Look at uncyclopedia: for one project that may have some use for it. ^Babub→Talk 16:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You have forgotten something. Nobody is the owner of Wiki.nids(♂) 16:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Go through Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for details.nids(♂) 16:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Babub, you should revert yourself. I didn't wanted to escalate the problem. But if you continue like this, i will have to ask an administrator intervention, (which i personally, dont want to do).nids(♂) 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You know nids, Hinduism's atheism is somewhat vague and practiced by a minute number of people. More than a sentence is doing a disservice to mainstream Hindu practices.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

With due respect Bakman, what you have written above is your opinion.You have cited no references to show that Hindu atheists are minute in number. Atheist Hindus or Atheism in Hinduism is a valid concept and should remain in the article. - Parthi 02:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please show me sources that Atheist Hindus are even 5% of practising Hindus. I'm nopt advocating deletion, I'm saying that Atheism in Hinduism is quite higher in the philosophical order than mainstream Hinduism.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry nids and Venu but I think it is slightly POV to mention it the way you did in the first paragraph. Firstly, the atheism sentence according to this was the third sentence of the whole article. The first impression that a person who has no clue on Hinduism gets when he reads the opening paragraph is Hinduism is mainly a monist religion but can also be athiest. There is much more than Hinduism than atheism or Vedanta. It is a bit misleading. Having said that, a good source is needed that majority of Hindus follow Vedanta (which I personally don't think so entirely. I have a feeling there is more devi/deva worshipping by the 930 million Hindus than knowing what Brahman or any other philosophical concept is.) Perhaps no denomination or philosophy should be metioned early on in the article considering that the relgion is so diverse unless a proper source is found for Vedant. I still deep down think most of the villagers/businessmen/common people ie) non-Brahmins/Swamis have little knowledge of what Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Sankhya, Mimansa, ... are. I believe they know more of how Hanuman burned Ravan's palace in Lanka and sing bhajans to the various gods. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, i support your suggestion that no denomination be mentioned in the intro section.nids(♂) 10:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hindu temples

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.104.113 (talk • contribs)

why not put these images in a Category:Hindu temples? the gallery clutters the talkpage and will just be lost in the archives while the category will remain accessible. dab (ᛏ) 08:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is this enemy of Hinduism?

Who is this enemy of Hinduism who says in the introduction, 'It is not a single well-defined religion'? That Hinduism consists of several schools of thought and traditions is very well defined by the most quoted line, 'Eko Sat, Vipra Bahudha Vadanti'. What is then left to define? It agrees that different thought and traditions are perfectly all right and will continue to exist in Hinduism. Even the 'dharma' of a person will depend on the region and traditions of the group that the person belongs to. For a Kashmiri brahmin eating meat is not against 'dharma' but it may be so for a Kanyakubja brahmin. If somebody could tell me as to what is not defined? Hinduism uses a dynamic model and not a static one. Aupmanyav 04:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you call everybody as enemy of Hinduism? This article is not private property of few people. It is difficult to decide who a Hindu is? Truthlover 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Have I ever said that the article is my property? I object to sentences like, 'Hinduism is not a single well-defined religion' or that 'hinduism is amorphous' or that 'hinduism does not know what is what'. Hinduism gives freedom of personal belief and values traditions of all sections of its adherents. A hindu is one who claims to be one and follows 'dharma' (duty/right action). Could anyone tell me why should there be a controversy? Aupmanyav 02:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Denominations

This section needs some clarifying. Even though "God" is spelt with a capital G, it would be better if the article used the term "Supreme God." I don't want to use relgious termonology like henotheism, pantheism, monotheism or whatever but most Vaishnavs, Shaivs, and Shakts still believe in the existance of other devas/devis. For example, ISKON acknowledges that the Trimurti exists but Vishnu or more specifically Krishna is above Brahma (who they believe is the "second creator") and Shiva. Many Shaivas of course worship Ganesh and Kartikkeya while there are Shaktas who believe that Shakti is the divine mother of the trimurti. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Da Gizza:

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Here are my thoughts: You are right that most denominations believe in other devas and devis, so the Hinduism article should indeed note this. At the same time, however, the primary goal of the main Hinduism article should be to highlight (as much as possible) the beliefs most denominations have in common--i.e., to show what beliefs unify them so that they are all considered "Hindus." So I don't want us to drown readers in information about each and every deva and devi.

Each individual denomination can have its own separate article that will highlight how it is different from other denominations, which can be linked to the Hinduism page. This will help to keep the Hinduism page coherent, and will help to explain what it means to be a Hindu, rather than what it means to be a Vaishnava, Shaiva, etc. To learn in detail what it means to be a Vaishnava, Shaiva, or shakta, readers should follow the links to the articles for those denominations. On the pages for each denomination, readers will be able to find links to the devas and devis associated with that particular denomination. Thus, the shakta article will include links to Kali, Parvati, Durga, and so on. But we should not try to include everything in the main Hinduism page. What do you think? HeBhagawan 15:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you pretty much. This page should focus on the similarities between all Hindus, or at least most Hindus since it is a very diverse religion. If there are not many similarities then it should not be regarded as one religion. I think we will have to use the "standard" definition of Hinduism here, which is the religion that came from the Vedas and doesn't include Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. The page so big already and there is stil so much which isn't mentioned. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also I forgot a very important point which is mentioned below as well. Hindus are united despite their different beliefs. According to my knowledge, there has never been any conflict between Hindus like there between the Catholics and Protestants of Christianity and the Sunni and Shiah of Islam. When a sect in India does fight with mainstream Hinduism, it tends to become its own relgion (like Buddhism and Sikhism). Remember that Hinduism was a Featured Article but the quality was never outstanding. You check how it looked back then by searching through the history. Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank HeBhagwan for taking this big effort. I agree with Gizza that sects of Hinduism are amorphous. Where I am (America) my local mandir has (Vishnu, Shiva, Balaji, Hanuman, Parvati, Ganesh, Ram, Mahavira, Buddha, Guru Gobind Singh, Durgamata, and Satya Sai Baba). Its amost crazy diversity, but that is arguably the major hallmark of Hinduism. Unity in diversity.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. Only people who follow advaita are more liberal. In Ramanuja's time, Vaishnavites were persecuted by a saivite king; that's why ramanuja moved to Karnataka for a while. Although tensions are small., there's a schism among Vaishnavites and Saivites.

The American model of many forms of deities is not the rule in India. It's sort of a compromise. Please read, http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2004/10-12/66-67_atlanta.shtml contrast that with temples in India. You never see a Shiva temple with a murti of Vishnu. Conflicts are rare in Hinduism because of the predominance of Advaita philosophy among the learned, who teach and influence the masses. Ramanjua's and Madhva's philosophies had difficulty surmounting Sankara's advaita philosophy, in influence. Madhava did succeed in spreading the bhakti movement all over India.

Raj2004 10:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In every religion, including Hinduism, there is some disagreement among denominations. But the fighting among denominations within Hinduism does seem to be pretty minimal overall, especially if you compare it with some other religions. The Hinduism article conveys this reasonably well, I think: it doesn't pretend that there are no disagreements among Hindus, and, at the same time, it doesn't exaggerate the differences. HeBhagawan 12:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

I have not been a regular contributer to wikipedia, just fixing things here and there whenever I see something wrong. Today, I learned about official qualifications for 'good articles' 'feature articles' and was so disappointed to not see Hinduism, while Sikhism and others were present. Obviously I'm not screaming "Discrimination!" at Wikipedia, but "Aloof!" at myself, for not contributing earlier. I have made it a goal now to make the Hinduism article and all related articles at a pristine level, to be renowned in Wikipedia. Because there are many more contributers already active here, I thought it would be better to perhaps use this 'discussion' page to mention my first idea before doing anything too drastic ;)

What first comes to mind: I have always spoken of Hinduism as neither Polytheistic, Monotheistic, Monistic, Dualistic, Qualified Dualistic, etc. but instead, as "multi-theistic" as it is so intrinsically plural, and yet beautifully unified. I am not speaking of simply the Saiva, Vaishnawa, Shakta, Smarta, etc. sects, but the definitive nature of smriti in dharma, i.e. any paramasatguru's prescribed smriti defines a unique element of this "multi-theism"

So, what I would like to do, to emphasize this nature, which I see anyway, as a possibly potent means of elucifying the true esoteric nature of Hinduism, is to enumerate at the highest possible level. This may be best accomplished by a kind of "dharma tree", with, perhaps, a parallel grihashta/sanyaasi dharma tree.

The core definition of Hinduism, I see as an inclusion of the Vedas in smriti. And yet, I feel a very strong but subtle bond to Buddhism, Jainism, and with context, Sikhism. So, perhaps having this at the highest level, may be effective, though I cautiously present this idea as I know that some Buddhist sects, at least, do not wish to see this type of association. However, as this article should be a Hindu understanding, with a preliminary disclaimer, I would imagine it to be acceptable.

One reason that I would like to see it this way, is because I've seen apparent Hindu generalities taken for granted as being such and included as such. For example, people commonly speak of Hinduism as having an idea of seven lotuses (muladhara, svadisthana, ... , sahasrara), but this is normally taken from Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, which, is not necessarily included in every element of our "multi-theism," as other elements may speak of only six, and specifically call them Chakras--not lotuses--and by different names. Now, because I have no examples from Hinduism articles in Wikipedia, I'm not going to say it's necessary for that purpose. However, if we categorize a very broad pool of beliefs that can be included or excluded from an particular element (i.e dharma), we can forever expel the possibility of any unnecessary, and potentially insulting, over-generalization, and again, I believe this can greatly clarify, if properly explained (which I am now very committed to doing), to people with little or no true Hindu exposure.

I am very eager to hear feedback on this idea; so much so that I'd rather not continue without it :-)

Saiva suj 19:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not able to understand your say that Vedas are included in Smritis. I feel the roots of Smritis are in Vedas. Are you talking of Smriti in context of memory or scriptures like Manu-Smriti. Smritis are constitutions whereas I believe Vedas can be considered as science. Pl. explain and oblige.

Swadhyayee 03:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your useful comments, Saiva suj. It's great that you want to contribute. Here are my thoughts:

All your ideas are interesting and deserve to be shared with Wikipedia readers, but they are so deep and detailed that I'm not sure that it would be ideal to put them on the main "Hindusim" page. It might be better to include them in a page that is linked to the Hinduism page. The reason is that your ideas are very deep and detailed. When somebody who knows nothing about Hinduism wants to learn a few key facts, they go to Wikipedia Hinduism. They go to the Hinduism page to get a SIMPLE SYNOPSIS of the religion, something they can digest in a few minutes. If they want further information and a deeper understanding of the religion, they follow some of the links. But the Hinduism page itself should present the religion in a nutshell, in a simple manner. So maybe some of your ideas should be put on a page that is linked to the hinduism article.

As for the "multitheistic" idea:

No matter what "label" we place on Hinduism--pantheistic, monotheistic, polytheistic, or multitheistic--we are going to have to do some explaining, because no single word in English can fully explain Hinduism's idea of God. "Multitheisic" is ok, but I'm not sure that it is any better than "polytheistic." "Multi-" and "poly-" mean exactly the same thing. I think the key is to say something like "Hindusim has been described sometimes as monotheistic, sometimes as polytheistic, sometimes as pantheistic, and sometimes as henotheistic. Each of these is true in its own way." Then go on to explain. HeBhagawan 12:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

HeBagawan, Thank you much, for your warm welcome :) and kind reply. I had read in this discussion page that there was an issue with the size of the page, and this is sort of what inspired my perspective; no synopsis of Hinduism can be reasonably sized while being adequate or accurate, if it is styled as it is. I would like to see the pillar Hinduism article as providing an extremely terse, but accurate overview, describing this fundamental nature, as well as the true--and definitive--core of Hindu thought. Also, what I intended by using "multitheistic" was simply to distinguish it from the meaning of polytheistic: a multitude of faiths as opposed to one simple faith, involving many individual Gods to be worshipped. Saiva suj 15:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Saiva suj:

You are right that the main Hinduism page needs to be focused. Where do you think the best place to start is? I am thinking that the section on Hindu philosophy (darshana) should be moved to its own page. It takes up a lot of space and, while the darshanas are imortant, I don't think they are so central to Hinduism that they have to be discussed on the main Hinduism page. Even most people who have been Hindus their entire lives would not be able to explain what the darshanas are, so it is probably not necessary to discuss them in a nutshell introduction to the religion. It is more likely to confuse non-Hindus than to enlighten them. The criterion for including things on the main page should probably be:

"If we have only 10 minutes to explain the entire Hindu religion to a person who knows nothing about it, what will we tell them?"

HeBhagawan 15:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan, I believe this article should explain in some detail the following concepts:
1) microcosmic & macrocosmic evolution
2) intrinsically cyclical nature of universe
3) Hindu perspective of role of religion in one's existence
In #3, I would like to stress the ideas of san marga Vs. anavo marga
Saiva suj 16:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Saiva suj and HeBhagawan, I'd strongly urge both of you to please read the following Wikipedia policies before launching your improvement drive: WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCE, WP:CITE, WP:MOS, WP:WIAFA. If your edits and information do not comply with these policies, they will be removed so please do read them thoroughly. Please see example featured articles like Sikhism to understand what is involved in writing a featured article. Rama's arrow 16:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Multi-theism or atheism. The best thing to say is that belief is a personal matter in Hinduism. 2. Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs generally don't want to be counted as hindus. Let it be rather than take up the issue with the millitant no-sayers. 900 million or 950 million does not make much difference. The bond, whatever is, would still be there. 3. Yoga or tantra, just like darshanas, perhaps they are better in their own pages. Hindus in general have no dealing with these esoteric practices. 4. Hinduism has never stressed on a particular theory of evolution, They have sort of side-stepped it, as they were more interested in Dharma. But my favourite, the Nasadeeiya Sukta, should be mentioned. 5. As Rama's Arrow says, writing for Wikipedia is not easy, one has to be careful. I limit myself to suggestions and rarely indulge in editing. I do agree that generally the hinduism-related pages are in bad shape and the credit goes to people who insist on presenting their personal views here. Aupmanyav 09:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for your suggestions! The Hinduism page still needs lots of work, but I think it is slowly improving. It's definately better than the mess that was there a couple months ago. Keep up the good work. HeBhagawan 18:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed Raj Yoga..

With due apology to the writer of Raj Yoga - a way to realise God, I have removed it as The Authentic Scripture "Srimad Bhagwad Geeta" has named only 3 methods, Bhakti Yog, Karma Yog and Jnan Yog.

Pl. leave a message on my talk page while this comment is replied.

Swadhyayee 17:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your contributions, Swadhyayee. It is great that you want to work on the page. With due respect, however, there are a few problems with your edits:

1. Lack of citations
2. Poor English
3. Poor organization
4. POV imposition (e.g., implying that the Bhagavad Gita is the only "authentic" Hindu scripture).

Please don't feel insulted. I recommend that when you make new additions, you should use citations, have a native-level English-speaker check the grammar, and think about how your additions can compliment the overall organization of the article. If you do not have time to do this, another way is to just put your ideas on the discussion page for others to incorporate into the article. What do others think?HeBhagawan 19:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not agree with your comments. I feel that you are trying to monopolise the article with your views. No one can claim to be perfect in opining for Hinduism, nor I admit that my English is poor. There is always a scope for refining any initial writing so the same can not be construed as poor English. I hope you will agree that knowledge of a subject is more significant over use of language. You by claiming that Srimad Bhagwad Geeta is not the only authentic scripture of Hinduism, exhibit your need to study further. The scholars from world over are impressed by Srimad Bhagwad Geeta and if I mistake not, Srimad Bhagwad Geeta is translated in nearly 100 languages which include translation by scholars of other religions too. Can you show me a single Hindu scripture which is so widely accepted world over without disputing a single principle like of Srimad Bhagwad Geeta? Rev. figures like Shankaracharya, Jnaneshwar, Swami Vivekanand, Shri Vinoba Bhave, Gandhibapu, Shri Tilak, Shri Gopalkrishna Gokhale, Shri Krishnamurthy and n' number of scholars have preferred to comment upon Srimad Bhagwad Geeta and have lived their life as per Srimad Bhagwad Geeta's dictates.

I would prefer to say that so far as facts known to almost everyone with slight knowledge of Hinduism does not need citation. Your removal of branches of Vedas indicate your interest of maintining only your views in the article.

I wish and solicit you to exhibit sportsman spirit and allow this article with additional facts.

Swadhyayee 03:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, Certainly the article can have additional facts. But let's try to make it of high quality, which means giving thought to the overall organization and having citations for as many assertions as possible. As suggested by Rama's Arrow, we should take guidance from featured articles like Sikhism, which explain the religion in an organized, clear manner.

Remember who the audience is: people who do not know anything about Hinduism. The article is an introduction. If it gives too much detail, it will be confusing for such people and it will be too long. So it is important to limit it to key concepts (but we can have links to articles that provide more detail on particular topics).

Just to be clear about the Gita--I am not saying that the Gita is an unauthentic scripture. Of course it is authentic. Nearly all denominations recognize the Gita. It may even be the most widely-read scripture in Hinduism. I only said that it was not the ONLY authentic scripture. There are other authentic scriptures too, such as the Vedas and Puranas, which are also recognized by most Hindus.

As for the branches of the Vedas, you are right: information about this should be included in the article. However, much of what you wrote was duplicated elsewhere (See Classification of Scriptures). What do you think about incorporating your information on classification of the Vedas into that section? HeBhagawan 04:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I shall be the happiest one if the article is of high quality, but in the guise of maintaining high quality article, one should not be allowed to monopolise on the contents of the article.

I have not seen Sikhism but I think the volume of scriptures of Sikhism against Hinduism would be quiet managable. We can't make Sikhism an ideal to make Hinduism page. I would have a look at Sikhism.

I do not take your removal of branches of Vedas as a bonafide act. May be un-intentionally but you are preventing incorporation of additional facts. I request you to scroll down the article and see the incorporation like Deities, Symbols, Guru-Disciple tradition, Mantra etc. and do some soul searching, you found only branches of Vedas in-appropriate for the article?

I also agree that the article will serve more purpose if the text is understandable to people of other religions or new generation of Hindus. The language of a doctorate in philosophy could be more impressive but could be less understandable to a common man or a youth. The language of article should be like talks flowing from the mouth of a teacher. One way you talk of article to be understandable to an alien, otherside you say my English is poor. Could you point out where did you find grammatical mistake in my edits?

What would you say authentic scripture of Muslims and Christains? Will everyone not agree, it to be "Kuran" and "Bible"? Ask anyone from other religion, would they not say "Srimad Bhagwad Geeta" an authentic Hindu scripture? You are pointing out Wikipedia policy to support that "Srimad Bhagawad Geeta" can not be implied as authentic Hindu scripture. Tell me what citation are you going to get for any Hindu scripture to be authentic? Is the general acceptance of all is in-sufficient for authenticity of a scripture? India was ruled by Britishers and India inherited present judiciary from British system, yet Hindu accused and witnesses are asked to swear in the name of "Srimad Bhagwad Geeta". from Britishers' time. What more do you want for authenticity of "Srimad Bhagwad Geeta" being an authentic Hindu scripture?

Your inclusion of Raj Yoga, a way to realise God is in-correct in my opinion. Raj Yoga is nothing but supplementary dictates of way to realise God. The way to realise God is divided in three methods, Jnan Yog, Karma Yog and Bhakti Yog. I will try to explain more about Raj Yog some other time.

I wish that you carefully consider and agree to remove in-correctly incorporated Raj Yoga from 3 ways of realising God as per Hindu doctrines.

Purans are stories and not considered to be scriptures. Purans are created to discipline way of righteous living for primitives and illiterates by instilling fear in them. No person will ever accept Puran as scripture, who can slightly understand Hinduism. "Srimad Bhagwad Geeta" is summary of dictates of Vedas.

Your arguments that the branches of Vedas is being duplicated here is not weighing. I may be able to point out number of things from the article as being duplicated, if I take some pain to scroll the pages.

I feel it would be more beneficial and appropriate to mention branches of Vedas in the article, however, some one can incorporate details elsewhere.

My earnest submission to you would be to keep your mind open for correction and bear with me for my sharp reactions to your removal of my edits and alleging my English to be poor. Let our views be free from egoistic personal beliefs in the interest of a neutral article. Swadhyayee 07:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee,

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. As already stated, I agree with most of what you say about the Gita, so there should be no argument. I will make 3 points about Raja Yoga:

1. Raja yoga--also called simply "yoga," "dhyana," or, in English, "the path of meditation"--is practiced by many Hindus, so we should not ignore it altogether.
2. It is described in many Hindu scriptures, books, and teachings (E.g., the classic Yoga Darshana (see the section on Hindu Philosophy), Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, Swami Vivekananda's Raja Yoga, etc.) so we cannot ignore it.
3. Even though the Gita is not the only authority recognized by most Hindus, it so happens that the Gita itself also recognizes the path of meditation. Even though the Gita does not use the exact word "Raja Yoga," preferring instead to just call it "yoga," the path of meditation has come to be called Raja Yoga in order to avoid confusion with the other yogas. For example, see Krishna's extensive discussion of this path at the end of Gita chapter V, and throughout all of chapter VI, and in other parts of the Gita as well.

If you want a disclaimer that "Not all Hindus believe in Raja Yoga, that is perfectly fine, but the article already contains a sentence stating that some Hindus only accept one or two of these paths, so I think that readers will understand that there exists some differnce of opinion. If the majority of other editors wish to remove Raja Yoga / meditation, then I will agree to do so. However, I suspect that they will not wish to remove it since many Hindus believe in it.HeBhagawan 17:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to HeBhagwan:

"Yog" means to join. The word "Yog" has originated from "Yuj" (Dhatu). I believe as per Hindu Shashtras there are only main 3 ways to realise God. 1) Jnan Yog 2) Karma Yog and 3) Bhakti Yog. Other terminologies are sub-divisions or further explanations. I will need more time to make it convincing to you that Raj Yog can not be incorporated with the 3 means of realisation of God as provided in Hindu Shashtras. You will see in Geeta "Karma Sanyas Yog" and other such terminologies. They are part of the main 3 means of realising God.

"Raj Yog" as explained by you and I understand is a method of meditation. I know, there is something wrong in incorporating "Raj Yog" as a seperate means of realising God or is different from main 3 means, Jnan, Karma and Bhakti. If, you re-look at Hindu Shashtras, there are only 3 means, Jnan, Karma and Bhakti. You are incorporating Raj Yog as a seperate entity along with these and only 3 means of realising God. I feel this to be absolutely in-correct. I hope, either you will realise this during your re-look or someone else will make it easy to understand the different view points between us. I don't mind even if you write commentary on any scripture but it's placing along with Jnan, Karma and Bhakti in inconsistent with Hindu doctrines. Jnan Yoga means to join with God by attaining mystical knowledge. Karma Yoga means to join God by doing Karmas without attachment or surrendering the fruits to The God from the stage of Sankalp. Whereas Bhakti Yoga means to join The God by means of Bhakti. You can explain Jnan, Karma and Bhakti, what will you explain for the term "Raj"? If you read Chapter IX of Srimad Bhagwad Geeta and note the names of other chapters like "Karma Sanyas Yog", "Karma Brahmarpan Yog", "Atma Sanyam Yog" and so on you will understand. Are you going to add these chapters because it has a tail of "Yog" at the end? Concentrate on three words Jnan, Karma and Bhakti being Updesh of Shashtras and meaning of Yog to remove your doubts. Swadhyayee 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

More on Raj Yog

Namaskar, I happen to be here while I saw some comments at the user bakaman's talk pages. I read the entire section above about removing Raj Yoga and more. I want to contribute here as I think only two of you are mainly discussing it. But before that, let me tell you that I shall try to be unbiased and maintain a NPOV. I will write here only with whatever amount of knowlegde I have about Hinduism. Hope you will take my comments in the right spirit, even though it might go against someone's edits.

There are indeed four ways to attain GOD in Hinduism. And they are Karm, Bhakti, Jnan and Yog. They themselves are referred sometimes as Karmyog, Bhaktiyog, Jnanyog and Rajyog. Yog when talked about separately in this context becomes Rajyog. Many people do not know it. If you define Yog as Join and being composed of Yuj dhatu, it is a literal meaning and though it is correct but it is somewhat loose. Yog is actually truely defined by Patanjali in his second sutra of the very first chapter of Yog Sutra. It goes like this: Yogah Chitti Vrittasya Nirodhah. Yog is the calming down of all the attributes (vritti) of the chitta. (plese note that my translation in English is very very loose wrt to the grand original meaning). The entire book then talks about the details of how to achive this, by means of asht margs (Yam, Niyam, Aasan, Pranayaam, Pratyahaar, Dharna, Dhayn, Samadhi). If we read the entire book, we will find that going through various stages of samadhis (sawikalp, nirvikalp, sabeej, nirbeej etc) in the end the sadhak finally reaches the stage where he is one with the GOD. All the vritties of the chitta has been calmed down and true Yoga has been achieved. Anyways, these are the details about Yoga itself. Lets discuss the main stuff here.

So, first, dear Swadhyayee, Rajyog (which is the same as Yog) must be there. Secondly regarding Srimadbhagvadgita, I think that there is no point of contention here. I do not see HeBhagwan denying the importance of it. Although it is a bit difficult, but if you ask Hindus to pick just one granth, they will have to pick Geeta and none other. Swami Vivekanand took Gita in the chicago dharm sansad, when other people came with their rev. books. It is said that Gita is the milk of (if) Upanishads (are cows). Most of the times, we will be concerned about Milk only. But sometimes, if need be, we might have to take care of the entire cow. That is what HeBhagwan was trying to say in my opinion. Vedas, Purans, Smritis, Yog Sutra, Brahm Sutra etc might have to be considered and referenced sometimes. So please do not ignore them completely. At the same time, even Gita has talked about the importance of Yog. The only thing is that it might not have used the term Rajyog. But believe me, when Yog is being referred in solitude, it is always Rajyog.

I hope my comments will only ignite discussion and no hard feelings among anyone. Dhanyawaad --APandey 08:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, i will have to say that you are taking things a bit too far. I appreciate that you do not accept Raj Yoga, but that doesnt mean you should stop others. --nids(♂) 10:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

To Mr.A.Pandey and Mr.Nidhishsinghal (& offcourse HeBhagwan),

I have heard about Raj Yog and Patanjali Yog Sutra, ofcourse I have not studied Patanjali Yog Sutra. As Mr.Pandey says, Geeta is considered to be milk of Upnishadas. I also told that Geeta is summary of Shashtras. My feeling is what one attain during Raj Yog is Jnan, which leads of merging of Atman with Brahman. My request to discuss were totally neglected though I put my request on Wikipedia profile Hinduism (?). Today, when I removed Raj Yog as it is a process of Dhyan Mr.Nidhish tell me that I am going too far. Check the dates of my edits. I am not eager to put my view, I am eager to remove wrong. Show me from any Shashtra that Hinduism state any other way then Jnan, Karma and Bhakti for sublimating of Atman to the stage of merging with Brahman. I am confident about what I am saying. To understand Karma, Bhakti and Jnan, one can classify it as way of living, which a person can live through out his life. I feel Jnan and Raj Yog can not be seperated and considere Raj Yog as a seperate entity. If, you can show me from Geeta that Raj Yog is referred at par with Karma, Bhakti and Jnan, I would accept it. Everyone here accept that Geeta is unquestionable Shashtra. There is not a sigle point of Hinduism which is not touched in Geeta. I feel it would not be correct to put Patanjali Yog Sutra at par with Geeta.

If Yog and Raj Yog is one then why Jnan, Bhakti and Karma are referred tp as Jnan Yog, Karma Yog and Bhakti Yog? I am not against Raj Yog. All I say is, Raj Yog is a process of Jnan Yog. What is the outcome of Raj Yog (Yam, Niyam etc.) , isn't it acquiring Jnan of mystical happenings and realising that I am not body, Manah: or Chittah: but Atma and I am The Brahman? Let Raj Yog be detailed under Jnan is my feeling.

Let's not compromise about our different views in making the article but let's understand the right perspective and incorporate it in the article.

I feel keeping silent during discussion and allowing one's disputed view un-altered is not in the interest of righteousness of the article. Swadhyayee 16:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Swadhyayee, I appreciate your feelings and efforts to put the right information about Hinduism in this article. But I have to repeat what I said. Rajyog is not (and can not be) a part of Jnan Yog. This is not because I or anyone else thinks. This is because it is. As far as explainnation about what will happen after the eight margs (Yam, Niyam etc) are mastered, as you know, all roads leads to thee. Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti. So I would not argue that the results will be different there. Even the end result of Bhakti and Karm are also the same. Isn't it? Being unified with the GOD, or Brahman or whatever name you want to call it. If you read Shankaracharya's biography, you will know that he started his learnings under his Guru, he learnt Hath Yog in year 1, Raj Yog in year 2 and Jnan Yog in year 3 and then came back. For a normal student, it takes years to learn these. You have asked for citations from Geeta. I think HeBhagwan has earlier pointed out something from some chapter. I will have to find out. But lets not obsessed with Geeta only. As I said earlier Geeta is considered the Saar of Upanishads, but there is no harm in seeing other stuff also. If you know about Prashtan-trayee, three granths are considered equivalent. These are Upanishads, Geeta and Brahm Sutra. Any one who wanted to establish their principles, they have to write commentary on these three to establish their view point. This is how Shakar, Ramanuj and others have done their work. Anyway, again these are very detailed topics. So please do not insist on Geeta only. Yog Sutra is also a very revered granth for Hindus. As far as citations from Geeta are concerned, I think that their must be something. Can you help me find out sections where Bhagwan talks about Jnan, Karm and Bhakti as the *only* three ways to reach HIM. I will try to find out something about RajYog from there. Thanks and happy researching. --APandey 17:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Give me some time, I will give chapters & Shlokas.Swadhyayee 01:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Apandey is correct. The term "raja yog" is used to distinguish this path from bhakti, jnan, and karma. The name is used for purposes of convenience, and many pandits and swamis also call it raja yog. He is also correct not to get obsessed with Geeta only since most Hinduism also includes Brahm Sutra, Bhagavat, and also commentaries by Shankaracharya, Ramanuj, and others. All these are included in Hinduism. It is a wonderful religion because it includes so much variety. Srimad Bhagavadgita never says "there are three paths alone and no other exists." If you try to limit Hinduism to one scripture only, or 3 paths only, it will no longer be Hinduism. RamRamji 19:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice that you just registered yesterday and commented to support Raj Yog as a way, seperate of Jnan Yog.Swadhyayee 01:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear RamRamji, Could you introduce yourself on your user page? No bad intentions, just a request.Swadhyayee 01:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Swayhyayee, With all due respect, please do not delete the Raja Yoga reference. You should not insist on imposing your personal view when other editors agree that it should remain. Let us collaborate in a democratic, cooperative manner, please. I agreed to delete the reference to Raja Yoga if a majority of editors wanted to do so, but so far all comments are in favor of retaining it. Are there any other editors who can comment on this? HeBhagawan 02:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Swadhyayee, While we are discussing the issue already here, why are you deleting the section on Rajyog? My dear friend, I do not want to start a controversy here and I want to respect everyone views, but that does not mean that others can force their views. Please do not take any of my comments personally, rather take them objectively in the interest of the article. Rajyog is an extremely important pillor in Hinduism and can not be ignored. There is no point repeating what I have already said before. Apart from researching Bhagvadgeeta for sections which state that "there are only three ways to reach GOD and they are Bhakti, Jnan and Karm", please also discuss with someone whom you consider as more knowledgeable in these matters. Sometimes it happens that we are so sure of our believes that we can not agree to the opposite. In that case, our discussion here might not satisfy you but a personal discussion with someone you know might be beneficial. I hope it helps. Thanks. --APandey 07:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr.A.Pandey,

Yes, I am going to talk to my elder brother who has studied philosophy and religious scriptures in detail for years together. One thing, no one is logically answering points raised by me and wish to maintain the article as it is which I feel contain mis-leading information and diplomatically allow the points raised by me to die down. A comment in support of Raj Yog came in the discussion page by someone who just got registered yesterday i.e. 7/10/2006, and just put only this comment. This sort of tactics to gain support are not fair. I am not removing elaboration of Raj Yog, I am simply removing Raj Yog from the place where Jnan, Karma and Bhakti are shown as way of life to realise God. I believe, Raj Yog should not be placed back until someone logically reason it's correctness. The discussion should be free from self supported tactics.Swadhyayee 12:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Gizza wrote: Namaskar HeBhagawan. It isn't POV to include both views at all. If you are referring to the "Raj Yoga" controversy, I think you should place a notice WT:INB here and send messages to everyone on this list and start a vote/organised discussion. Keep up the good work on the Hinduism article. I do not have much time to help because I have school exams coming up soon. I will just add my comments. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

He Bhagawan wrote: Gizza, thank you for your suggestions. I think that a vote/organized discussion is a good solution. We all want the same thing: an accurate and informative article, so this might be the best way to achieve it on the Raja Yoga point. HeBhagawan 13:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Swadhyayee, I have to take a tough stand now. You are not only pushing your POV but also being arrogant and making baseless allegations which are disgusting and disturbing for me. I have just concluded some edit wars at Jana Gana Mana, Vande Mataram, Hindi etc pages where I have proved my point using citations and references. There I was very tough on vandalisers because mine and their goals were different. When I came to Hindusim for editing (after seeing your comments on bakaman's talk pages as I told you before), I took an extremely soft way because I knew that people here are there for a common purpose. But my soft stand is probably being taken as my weakness by you. So I have to assert myself.

Let me tell you that removing information from wikipedia without citing proper reasons (with sources and references) comes under vandalism and thats what you have been doing for the last few times when you are removing Rajyog from the list of multiple ways etc. HeBhagwan have provided you references and I asked you to provide sections from Bhagwadgeeta about your claims. You have not done that yet. Just because you think that Rajyog is not separate and should be a part of Jnanayog, it will not happen so. To me (and for that matter to anyone with basics in these matter), it is as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4. You said that we are changing topics and not answering your questions. Tell me which of your important questions are not answered here.

And most importantly, I am taking a strong exception to the fact that you are linking me with some new user and alleging me of forming support groups. Let me tell you that I do not need a support group for editing wikipedia. Go and see the talk pages of Jana Gana Mana in which indeed I have almost single handedly fought with a fanatic support group for the cause of Hindi and our national anthem. And as far as this new user is concerned, why do you think it is not possible for someone to come and immediately comment on a dicussion on Hindusim. Your comments linking me and the new user are not only derogatory for me but also for the new user. You must apologize for that. I will take this matter to admins if you continue making baseless allegations about non-relevant topics here. This is the talk page of Hinduism, lets just discuss Hinduism here and nothing else.

I am reverting back your changes in the article. It is you who have to provide citations before deleting any text from the article. With all due respect to my beloved Lord Krishna, your clinging to Geeta is not correct when you are talking about a religion as vast as Hinduism. And even from that you have not been able to provide references. Please be mature my dear friend. Good luck and happy editing. Thanks --Apandey 13:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Abhishek Pandey,

I fail to understand, who do you think yourself to be to say that you will take tough stand and have been obliging me by taking soft stand. Pl. mind your language. I have never I have never linked you to the new user. My statement was in general and I stand by my statement that supporting Raj Yog is self supported tactic and you could report to admin and let him varify. In all probability, if he is able to varify IP address, I will stand vindicated.

Who is arrogant me or you? Just read my comments and your comments. Your edit on Jana Gana Mana does not make you superior over any other person. What right do you have to show yourself obliging others or are superior to others simply because you joined 5 to 6 months and edited some of the articles?

What is your right to claim that citation of HeBhagawan of Patanjali Yogsutra is superior to the knowledge of general fact of Srimad Bhagwad Geeta's doctrine of Jnan, Karma and Bhakti?

I have already cited reasons to remove Raj Yog in talk pages and which is known to you and HeBhagawan.

Pl. don't use this language ever. Swadhyayee 14:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan said: Everybody, please be kind and respectful

To Swadhyayee: I believe that I have already supported what I said with (1) logic, (2) citations, and (3) comments by other users. I have even offered suggestions for ways to incorporate your claim that some Hindus do not believe that Raja Yoga / meditation is a path to moksha, but not to the exclusion of other views. To be quite honest, you are the first Hindu I have ever known to make this argument. When opinion x and opinion y are in conflict, the way to resolve the matter is to find a way to express both opinions; not to simply delete opinion x, as you have done. Of course, there should be at least some initial evidence to show that a significant number of persons (and definately more than one person) supports each view before it should be included at all.

I have tried to work for a compromise that all can agree with. You do not seem to be reading carefully what other editors have written. You do not seem to have read the entire Hinduism article before making deletions, since your deletions upset the organization of the rest of the article. I do not wish to re-state all the same points again. For further logical reasoning, which you accuse me of not using, please re-read our entire discussion on this page. I do not wish to continually repeat it.HeBhagawan 14:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I request users of this page to view this section on arguments about whether to include Rajyog or not. Please see my language and the language of other people who are threatening me and making baseless allegations while also pusing their POVs without citations. Please also see this where this particular user is warning me about my age etc in response to my comments on his talk page, which was here. This is certainly a personal attack. The user needs to be told that age is not a factor in editing wikipedia while knowledge is. As a matter of fact there are many wikipedia admins who are still in their teens. Having said that, I am also going to revert the article again. If the user Swadhyayee reverts my edits and vadalise the article again, that will be the violation of 3RR rule. I am warning him here in advance not to break 3RR. As far as citations are concerned, this talk page still needs to see the citations from Srimadbhagvadgeeta (or from any other such sources) which claims that there are only three ways to reach GOD in Hinduism and they are Bhakti, Jnan and Karm. Thanks. --Apandey 14:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, from the above comment of the user Swadhyayee I have never linked you to the new user. My statement was in general and I stand by my statement that supporting Raj Yog is self supported tactic and you could report to admin and let him varify. In all probability, if he is able to varify IP address, I will stand vindicated.; I challenge any user or Admin to show here a connection between me and any of the other users of this page (including HeBhagwan, and the once only editor Ramramji) by means of IP address or whatever. These baseless allegations need to cease with immediate effect and I believe some admin has to intervene here. Thanks --Apandey 15:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee & APandey,

I have posted messages for the other Hinduism project editors, requesting them to read the discussion on this page and to make comments. Hopefully this can resolve the issue. Please stop editing in order to give them a chance to reply. I hope the comments of other editors can help us to resolve this in a democratic manner. If this does not resolve the issue, however, it may be necessary to appeal to the admins. Thank you. HeBhagawan 15:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To all editors

Accusing other users of being socks (especially within our own Hindu brotherhood) is stupid. At least be civil. Arguing is best served for when anti-Hindu garbage seeps into the article, rather than when there is merely a trivial argument on types on yoga.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To Everyone I checked the history of Jana Gana Mana and Vande Mataram also discussion pages. The participation in edits or discussion by Abhishek Pandey is not as he claimed in his first un-controlled comments and certainly not on later dates. Why should we divide the editors as Hindu or Anti-Hindu here? If a group of people are supporting any particular view as it to be seen as support of majority, the group is sock puppeteer.Swadhyayee 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee Are you satisfied for the article to include the following disclaimer?

Some Hindus advocate Raja yoga as a path in its own right, while others practice it as a supplement to bhakti yoga, karma yoga, or jnana yoga.

I should think that this statement would make everyone happy.HeBhagawan 16:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagwan, I am sorry to say that I would not agree to that. Some Hindus think that Yoga is rubbish, or lots of people think Yoga just means physical exercise. Can we put those thoughts here. Certainly not. Then why this compromise with truth. Let there be no compromise with truth to accomodate a particular user's ignorance and pushing of POV. Truth alone will win in the end (Satyamev Jayate).

And I am warning Swadhyayee again for using the term sock puppeteer. This is personal attack and goes against the spirit of wikiepdia. Thanks. --Apandey 16:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: For anybody who wants to get a general idea regarding whether raja yoga is widely accepted by many Hindu denominations, pandits, and swamis, just do a quick Google search on four yogas, or on raja yoga. Then do a search on something like "raja yoga false." Of course, Google searches do not constitute conclusive evidence of anything, but doing this can give you a general idea. HeBhagawan 17:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism is Inclusive
I'm stunned that there would be any attempt to remove Raja Yoga from Hinduism. If someone were trying to make Christianity to be an important part of Hinduism, that would be one thing. But Raja Yoga? This really raises the question of 'what is Hinduism?' I think the question is answered in other articles on Wikipedia, such as Hinduism:

Hinduism looks to a large number of religious texts developed over many centuries that contain spiritual insights and provide practical guidance for religious life.

and Raja Yoga:

Raja yoga is also known as Ashtanga Yoga. The term Ashtanga means eight limbs, thus Ashtanga Yoga refers to the eight limbs of yoga. It is the classical Indian system of Hindu philosophy and practice (composed by Patanjali perhaps ca. 200 BCE)

Hinduism has stayed live over the centuries because proponents like Patanjali have added to the understanding of what is Hinduism. I strongly disagree that there should be ANY disclaimer next to Raja Yoga, unless there is a disclaimer next to every other aspect of Hinduism - since there will always be some subset of Hinduism (or some individual) that doesn't believe or practice a particular aspect of Hinduism. ॐ Priyanath 18:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyee, is partially correct. Raja yoga is the path of meditation, as a way to achieve God realization. But the path of meditation was difficult for even great persons such as Arjuna so bhakti yoga is more recommended for the Kali yuga. see, http://www.jswami.info/raja_yoga

http://www.vedanta.org/wiv/practice/yogas/raja.html

Raj2004 21:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Raj2004 for providing your views. We are not in disagreement about Raja yoga being the path of meditation. The part user Swadhyayee is not accepting is that, it is also a way to achieve realization. That is where the disconnect is. We all are agreeing that it stands at the same place as Bhakti, Jnan and Karm, but he *thinks* it should be a sub part of Jnana. As far as difficulty is concerned, your views are correct but then again, the disconnect is not there. Thanks. --Apandey 21:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Abhishek Pandey, you are mis-understanding me and mis-quoting me, I have never said, I do not accept Raj Yoga is a way to achieve realization. I say that it is not be-fitting with Jnan, Karma and Bhakti Yoga as these 3 are sciences and Raj Yoga is a process to discipline mind and body for a session to meditate. Swadhyayee 02:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, I have a suggestion: Why don't you help to edit other issues in the Hinduism Project? Let us leave the Raja Yoga issue. I was willing to accomodate you by putting a disclaimer, but it seems that other editors do not want to do even that. I felt compelled to report you to the admins because of your unfounded reversions, but I will gladly withdraw my report if you can put your efforts toward improving the article. There are so many things that need to be improved. Consider working on the Bhagavad Gita section, since you have great interest in that, and I think you will be able to find citations. I will try to find citations for the things you mentioned on the talk page. For a few of those things, a single citation is meant to cover multiple sentences. Thanks! HeBhagawan 03:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear HeBhagawan, I take both, your suggestions and reporting to admin through Mr.Chris in good spirit. Hope you have seen my copy pasting of an annonymous request under IP address to someone drawing attn. to Raj Yog controversy. If the actions are backed by honest intentions, there was no need to make this annonymous request. What will you gain by banning me? I am happy that louder the issue, better the response. Frankly, I would not be so strong in my protests if I was weak. What is the guarantee that you will not behave in the same fashion, if I suggest to remove other wrongs? Hope you must have seen my comments on plenty of claims devoid of citation in just 1st few paras of Hinduism. I feel, you will prefer to keep silent when you will not have an answer. I can see your dedication in making a good article on Hinduism which would make me happier being a Hindu. I want the article should be as far as possible free from distorted facts. I do not want you to oblige me and withdraw the report, I want it to be blown out suitably, so justice will be done to the cause. To me Raj Yog issue is not an issue of prestige so I can think of compromising to gain your permission to edit elsewhere. We all learn and improve our thinking by this type of debate and war. At the end of any event, one has to come out as a sporty editor. I shall certainly do so and wish you and A.Pandey do the same. I repeat, I am taking your suggestions and reporting sportily and I am sure, I can deal with the situation even against many. It will be a matter of time. At no stage, you have objected to A.Pandey's arrogance as he was being coconut of The Holi. You should show the honesty in thinking that we are a minute part of this project and universe and not owner of the project or Wikipedia. It helps us to be modest when people don't allow our POV to be incorporated but asking for citations for facts of general knowledge and not prepared to understand the debate is kiddish. I am not sure the voters had cared to go in to my reasoning against Raj Yog.

Assuring you of my sportsman spirit in the debate.

Swadhyayee 04:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Propose to take a vote

This discussion is getting very heated. Can we take a vote on whether to include Raj Yoga?

Support

1. I vote yes, to keep it as there are 4 yogas. Chris 15:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Of course I vote yes, to keep mention of 4 yogas.HeBhagawan 15:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
3. I vote yes, to keep all four yogas together. Apandey 16:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Yes, there are Four Yogas. This broad classification is a well accepted fact. Apnavana 17:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Yes.nids(♂) 18:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Yes, of course, and with no disclaimer (see comments above). ॐ Priyanath 18:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. utcursch | talk 12:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Per Swami Shivananda I have to say there are four.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I am against it. Raj Yog has no place with Jnan, Karma and Bhakti.Swadhyayee 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments after the Vote

Considering this overwhelming consensus, I think it is only right to include the four traditional yogas of Hinduism in this main Hinduism article. Any further removal of Raj Yoga should be considered as vandalism. I have never heard such a silly contraversy created by a single person on such an important Wikipedia article. Chris 00:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please would the above 6 voters note the ridiculous changes made yesterday viewable on this history page? All ISBN numbers were removed from references. Images were removed. Even good grammar was changed to bad grammar. I think this is very very serious vandalism. The entire article has been harmed beyond simply the 4 yogas. I propose that we revert to the page as it was prior to the above changes made yesterday. I know this will lose some valuable changes made in the last 24 hours by others, but this appears to me to be a serious crisis until this one editor is banned. Please give me feedback before I do such a drastic reversion to how the article was prior to recent chaos. Without such a reversion, I fear it will take months to get the article back to the excellent state it was in the day before yesterday (6 October 2006). Chris 01:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Chris, I have not made any other changes than Raj Yoga or a controversial follow-up, if the others preferred to keep Raj Yoga at the same place. I was also not aware about the votes as I was offline. Will you see my comments of the day and see the reasoning? Before branding me Vandal, I will expect you to understand the difference between Raj Yog and other Yogas. The terminology confuse as each end with Yoga. Hope you will see the timings of my edit and timings of votings. Also care should be exercised that the voting is not sock puppetry.Swadhyayee 02:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this annonymous request under IP address could be suspected to be sock puppetry? '"Dear Hinduism Project editors,

There is a controversy on the Hinduism regarding Raja Yoga. Please read the debate on the Hinduism discussion page. Your comments are requested on the Hinduism discussion page to help resolve the controversy. Thank you. 68.239.78.172 15:04, 8 October 2006 "Swadhyayee 03:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, I have a suggestion: Why don't you help to edit other issues in the Hinduism Project? Let us leave the Raja Yoga issue. I was willing to accomodate you by putting a disclaimer, but it seems that other editors do not want to do even that. I felt compelled to report you to the admins because of your unfounded reversions, but I will gladly withdraw my report if you can put your efforts toward improving the article. There are so many things that need to be improved. Consider working on the Bhagavad Gita section, since you have great interest in that, and I think you will be able to find citations. I will try to find citations for the things you mentioned on the talk page. For a few of those things, a single citation is meant to cover multiple sentences. Thanks! HeBhagawan 03:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris, Thank you for helping to fix Swadhyayee's vandalism. I have looked over the things that were changed, and I think that the reversion you made is a net loss for the page. It was a good idea generally, but after looking at which things were changed, I am convinced that whichever things were fixed by the reversionn, they are outweighed by the things that were lost, due to some good edits in the past 24 hours. My suggestion is for you to revert it back to your prior edit, and we can just go through and fix any damage this user has done on a case-by-case basis. HeBhagawan 02:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we consider to put branches of Vedas in the article?

Thanks HeBhagwan for incorporating "A-Paurushey" and "Parampara", could you as well please incorporate branches of Vedas in your language?

Swadhyayee 17:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swadhyayee, I'm very busy at the moment, so I don't have time to write a complete reply. I will try to incorporate branches of the Vedas soon. If another person would like to do so, they are also welcome. Everybody: One thing we really need to improve is the "History" section. Thousands of years are unaccounted for!HeBhagawan 19:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, I find "A-Paurusheya" and "Parampara" removed after my comments. I am not able to find out who did it? I am finding some changes don't reflect in history. How? Swadhyayee 01:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have incorporated some of Swadhyayee's suggestions regarding the branches of the Vedas into the section on "Classification of Scriptures." There is still more work to be done, but what do you think so far? HeBhagawan 03:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the word "Salvation" appropriate?

I would like editors to think, whether the word "Salvation" used in Jnan Yog is appropriate? Jnan Yog is a way leading to mystical understanding and thus freeing oneself from the state of "Karta" and realising that "Atman" and "Brahman" is one.

Could the word "Salvation" be replaced by some better word?

Swadhyayee 01:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. Salvation is a good word to use in the context of false religions interpretations, but has really no place in sanatan Dharma.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Salvation" could be replaced by "liberation," lekin mere vichār mein koī badā fark nahīn padtā. Either word is fine. HeBhagawan 02:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd think either salvation or liberation is fine, but I'd say the meaning of these words are slightly different. Bakaman, may I ask what you mean when you refer to false religions? Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 03:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant false interpretations. ex. (what wendy doniger thinks of Hinduism and what pat robertson says about it)Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Realisation Anubhuti may be the appropriate one. − Apnavana 17:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Avatars

At the moment, it sounds like the only true avatars are the avatars of Vishnu. They, especially Ram and Krishn, are definitely the most famous but are not the only avatars. Even Vaishnavs believe Lakshmi has many avatars eg. Sita. Also some Hindu sects believe Hanuman and Shankaracharya are avatars of Shivji. The Ganapatya believe Shri Ganesh has 32 Avatars. Vishnu's avatars are not the only avatars. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Please incorporate some of these avatars into the article, or make suggestions on this page. Or, if you think it would be too confusing to mention many avatars, we could include them on the "avatara" article. Your choice. Thanks for the help! HeBhagawan 03:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversion Wars

Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in blocks being implemented due to violations of the three revert rule. Instead of performing pure reverts, disputing persons should cooperatively seek out methods of compromise, or alternative methods of statement. While edits made in collaborative spirit involve considerably more time and thought than reflexive reverts, they are far more likely to ensure both mutually satisfactory and more objective articles. In the case of less experienced contributors, who have unknowingly made poor edits, reversion by two or more people often demonstrates that such reversions are probably not fundamentalistic or in bad faith, but instead closer to an objective consensus.

High-frequency reversion wars make version histories less useful, make it difficult for uninvolved users to contribute in a meaningful fashion, and flood recent changes sections and watchlists. Low-frequency reversion wars, while still problematic, do not tend to cause the Wikipedia community as many problems. HeBhagawan 15:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I share your concerns. I feel sock puppeteer edits would take the differences to war. Swadhyayee 15:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The admin Gizza who was probably keeping an eye on this page is on a wikibreak hence we are not getting enough help from admin. Is there any other admin around? Swadhyayee even after my warning and asking for citations for his claims, is still engaged in putting out of context details in the article's page. I just saw individual articles on Bhakti yoga, Raja Yoga, Karma yoga and Jnana yoga, of which I have edited none ever. All four unanimously claim that these four are the paths to attain Moksha and that the final outcome is the same. Rajyog is kept at the same level by all four articles. Then why this POV is being pushed. The current edits of Swadhyayee are out of sync. They not only lack citation (which chapter of Geeta says so?), but also destroy the asthetic beauty of that section. I will revert the article again. And I am again warning user Swadhyayee to not engage in a baseless edit war until he can prove his point using citations and references. Thanks --Apandey 15:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! You guys are fighting over something that is so far from the mainstream Hinduism that it shouldn't even be in the article. Reserve your fights for when anti-Hindu things come up.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There are other new users(IPs) who are making improper edits. Like Brahman => Brahma and so on. Please discuss first on the talk page what you are trying to do. --Apandey 16:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There are lot of claims without citations in the article.

There are lot of claims without citations in the article that suits to some of the editors. Some of the editors ask for citations for the facts of general knowledge of any Hindu and remove additions to the article.

For example, The following claims are devoid of citations. 1)Claims in 1st para of the article 2) Claims between Ref. 8 & 9, although Hindus have clerical hierarchy of Shankaracharyas. 3) Claims in core concepts 4) The Hindu scriptural canon is not closed. 5) Hindus do not concern themselves much about whether the stories found in scriptures are accurate from a historical perspective... 6) Hindu sages in contrast with Judeo-Christain and Muslim prophets..., although Bhagavat contain predictions of Kalyug and elaborate birth of tinies etc. and Pralay. 7) they are more concerned with two things 1) teaching mystical things..... 8) The experience of divinity that can give one true peace..... 9) Bhakti-Yoga is prescribed for people of emotional temperaments...

Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga and Jnan Yoga is a way of life where as Raj Yoga is discipling body and mind for a session which may successfully last for few seconds to few hours or days. Yet they are merged together and not allowed either to be segregated from one another or allowed to be followed by clarifying comments, in the name of citations needed.

My objections are not against for claim of result of Raj Yoga but my objections are for placing them together simply because each term end with Yoga. To me, Bhakti, Karma and Jnan is subject of science where as Raj Yoga is training of mind and body.

Well those who ask for citations to my edits have to read Srimad Bhagwad Geeta in entirety which they may not want to do and just seek citations to remove my edits.

Is this befitting NPOV policy? Will the concerned editors exhibit honesty in thinking? Swadhyayee 02:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, citations are good even for matters of common knowledge. The reason is that what may be common knowledge for Hindus may not be common knowledge for non-Hindus. If there is a citation, then in case a person wishes to learn more about a particular point, he or she can go to the library, bookstore, or website and find the particular book for further research. Also citations help to prevent POV assertions. Although citations don't prevent POV assertions completely, they do help. The reason is that a citation is evidence that at least somebody other than the editor believes the assertion. As you have noticed, I am steadily working to increase the citations on the Hinduism page. Any help would be appreciated. HeBhagawan 13:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

New Books!

Well, I hate spending time on this vandalism issue, especially because I recently checked out some books from the universtiy library which I can use to enhance citations in the article, and maybe also to add some content to the History section. If Swadhyayee would just stop causing so much trouble, we could all spend our time to make improvements, rather than having ridiculous debates. HeBhagawan 02:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks Chris, HeBhagwan and everyone for your efforts. The article even after so much of discussion, is still being vandalised by one user. I propose we block this user from further edits on this article. I will not respond to any of his alleagations now because that will be below my dignity. All other editors on this page have also expressed their views. This is the height of vandalism. A user, just because he thinks certain things are in certain ways is pushing his POV. When citations and logic are provided, he is not willing to read them. When citations, logic are asked, he is not willing to provide except for the fact that "I think so", "I feels so" etc. And as if that was not enough, he is also alleging people for being sock puppet etc. which is highly derogatory. He must be blocked from this page to prevent further vandalism. And many thanks to HeBhagwan for providing so many references and continually making effort to make it a good article. Thanks. --Apandey 08:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For the information: There is no edit in last 24 hours for disputed issue. I have already approached admn. board to review the situation. I have also raised my doubt of sock puppetry. I don't know who can take the risk of blocking me without varifying the correctness of allegations of Vandalism? Swadhyayee 12:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, you should first accept that you have consensus against you. In such cases, you must source your claims excellently: if you provide watertight evidence, policy will of course trump incidential consensus, but so far you have really done nothing to substantiate your position. Edits like this one may not be malicious, but of such poor quality that they are worse than worthless. See also my post to User talk:DaGizza: your first concern will be to improve the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali and Raja Yoga articles, which are very poor at the moment. dab (ᛏ) 14:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Apandey - Lay off. Raja yoga/jnan yoga/etc are so far from the mainstream (Bhaja Govindam/Raghupati Raghav/Balaji) Hinduism that its not such a big issue. Save your anger for the Anti-Hindu editors.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to swadhyayee - Per Sivananda (whos a respected Swami and not some creepy Indologist trying to mess with dharma) there are four yogas. Many other sources can attest to this. I think I will have to agree with dab here and say that you should improve the Swadhyay Parivar, Raja yoga and other articles you are interested in. Its a shame to see your knowledge used for fighting. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Bakasuprman,

While appreciating your efforts to mediate, I say that I have no study in Patanjali Yog Sutra. If, I have to improve Raj Yoga, I have first to study Patanjali Yog Sutra. I have not studied Sanskrut and my knowledge is based on discourses and reading of Geeta and other books in my mother tounge. To understand me about Raj Yog controversy, one has to have study of Geeta. Since you have given a reference, I am understanding the view points of others. This is not a fight to establish supremacy. It's a supplementary discussion to incorporate truth. Unfortunately, the im-temperamental language of some of the editors and their haste has given the discussion ugly turn. I am less sort of a person who could be bullied. The worst is the person like dab is adding fuel to the fire by commenting that my edits were worse than worthless. It's no way to discuss and mediate. You have also dis-agreed with me but you have done it in appropriate manner. Anyway, I find your use of word "shame" in-appropriate. I still feel that I have valid points. Every one has cited Patanjali Yog Sutra and no one has cited Geeta in support of their claim. I am sure, HeBhagawan understands the validity of my view point but desires the article to be as it is. It takes time to find citation, I will provide citation when I get it. Till now, I was under impression that I have to provide an internet link which was discouraging me. Anyway, thanks for the interest.

Regarding Swadhyay Parivar, it has turned into a criminal organisation under guise of religious organisation. Though, I know a lot about it, I can't glorify them or condemn beyond limit.Swadhyayee 02:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And Jnana yoga is meant for the rational person.

Although there is nothing wrong in saying that Jnan Yoga is meant for the rational person but I feel, people with high spiritual quest prefer the path of Jnan Yoga. Should it be amended suitably?Swadhyayee 01:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I pray to all the devas and devis that we may simply work to improve the article and not start another debate about whether one yoga is superior to another. HeBhagawan 02:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan,

There is no point of one yoga superior over other. I am asking for proper understanding of Jnan Yoga, if you agree with me.Swadhyayee 02:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee I have no clue what "people with high spiritual quest" means. HeBhagawan 02:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

People with high spiritual quest means people who can not stay without taking recourse to Jnan Yog. It's a condition like pre-sneeze where a person can not remain without sneezing. Swadhyayee 03:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee Are you trying to say "there are some who feel irresistably drawn to Jnana Yoga?" If this is what you are trying to say, I think it goes without saying. I think readers will understand this without there being any need to add a sentence stating it. Of course, some people will feel irresistably drawn to other yogas as well--that is how many people decide which one to follow. HeBhagawan 03:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, only irresistance drive one to select the path of realising God be it Karma, Jnan or Bhakti. The irresistance is due to the imprints upon mind and intellect of previouse births and increase while pursuing the same in present birth. But no one without quest for understanding mystics take recourse to Jnan Yog. I feel if not significant, there is minute difference.Swadhyayee 04:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that all the four yogas are just equivalent. Period. Look at Shankarachayra. Normally he looks like the biggest Jnanayogi ever, but if we read his devotional writings, there is so much Bhakti in those which is just unparalled in Hinduism. He was as much jnanayogi as much bhakt. If we go by the legends that he was able to put his body for rest and enter a dead body (the king Amruth's story, if I am not wrong) and then come back later to his own body, then he appears to have tremendous power as a Rajyogi also.

Similarly in the modern context, Swami Ram Krishna Paramansa, who was undoubtedly a person with very very high spiritual quest preferred the path of Bhaktiyog for himself after he experienced all the different paths and understood that all paths are leading to the same destination. Thanks. --Apandey 05:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Karma & Reincarnation.

Hope I don't enter into another heated controversy. I have heard the term reincarnation being used for birth of God in human form. I shall be grateful, if some one please tell whether reincarnation could be used for re-birth of a human being?

Under Karma & Reincarnation, it is stated,

"If we regularly perform good actions, we will develop good tendencies. If we do bad things, we will develop bad tendencies, which naturally can cause bad things to happen in our lives. Since Hinduism believes in reincarnation, it follows that our actions in this life can determine what kind of tendencies we will be born with in subsequent lives."

Should it be suitably amended as it is not good actions, it is good or bad motives behind an action that develop respective tendencies? Pandurang Shashtri Athavale used to explain this as, "If, a well is dug keeping in mind the next elections where the doer wants to stand and win the election" though the action of constructing a well in water striving village is a good action but not with good motives can not give rise to good tendencies whether in this birth or subsequent births. A good action with bad motives can not create good imprints in mind or intellect.

Whereas he used to tell further, that an action of mother's beating her child is bad but motives may be good, so it should be considered to be a good action.Swadhyayee 07:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Desires behind re-births.

"Hinduism teaches that the soul goes on repeatedly being born and dying. One is reborn on account of desire: a person desires to be born because he or she wants to enjoy worldly pleasures, which can be enjoyed only through a body.[45]"

In Hinduism, the nature of desire leads to re-birth in appropriate kind of body viz. to satisfy a particular type of Vasana or enjoy particular Vishay, a re-birth not necessarily be in human form, it could be appropriate animal form where the desire could be thoroughly satisfied.

There are more than one reason for re-births, I think it is four and I shall narrate it later.Swadhyayee 07:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Avatāras (incarnations of God)

I think some of the translation of of V. 8 of Chapter IV of Geeta is missing. "Paritranay Sadhunam, Vinashaya Ch Dushkrutam" The God takes human form to help sages (the people who work to protect religion in difficult times) and destroys evil persons.

This is very important as it projects the cause of incarnation of God. Another thing that "Age" is translated for "Yug" [ Yuge Yuge ]. If I mistake not, the term "Yug" means 1000 years. I wish somebody confirm the meaning of "Yug".

This message, increases the faith of the people who work for protecting the religion or righteousness and it implies that The God does not take human form, untill and unless, humans work to restore righteousness.

I feel that the translation here of V. 7 & 8 of Ch. IV of Geeta is devoid of proper meaning. Swadhyayee 08:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As you said Avatar is incarnation of GOD. Re-incarnation is referred to mean re-birth only. This is to discuss your previous point when you asked about re-incarnation as being GOD taking janm as a human. I hope the difference between incarnation (avatar) and re-incarnation (re-birth) should be clear. Now that re-birth can be in the form of a human or animal or anything as you said earlier. Regarding the other point, when Yuge-Yuge is said, it can be translated as again and again, time and again etc. Example: Samabhavami yuge yuge, I will keep on coming time and again. Translating Yug for 1000 years or so would be inappropriate IMO.