User talk:GourangaUK

temple: Jagannath Temple (Puri)

Agree with you about box (Jagannath Temple (Puri)) Mattisse(talk) 13:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jagannath Temple

Having an infobox gives a more consistent look and feel to all articles of the same category. It also allows viewers to quickly get the gist, what is the temple name, who built, the type of architecture, and when it was built... So, i beleieve that the info box be there. Balajiviswanathan 23:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I do feel why some people like a bigger picture. Probably, we should look for trying to configure the infobox (which I dont know how) to make it big or trying to revert to the previous type, but with a table added. What do you think? Balajiviswanathan 07:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, infoboxes are used in almost any FA to give the article a better organization. Everything from people, places, books, deities... are organized in appropriate infoboxes to give a consistent look and feel. Since, hindu temples are still in the start stage, most of them dont have infoboxes. So, I'm trying to add them to those that doesnt have. having an infobox helps a reader in quickly getting the important info about a temple - who built it, when, where, type of architecture and deity.

Having a huge picture, though might be attractive, sometimes gives an amateurish look in wikipedia. However, I do agree that you might feel the current infobox pic shows the temple too small. It is due to the Horizontal nature of the photo. We'll try to find the vertical photograph (like in Vishnu article, etc) and so it would feel better. Balajiviswanathan 19:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

INCOTW

You voted for Tirupathi Venkateshwara Temple, this week's Indian Collaboration of the Week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

On Jivas

In order to avoid a to-ing and fro-ing of reversions and edits, a few words about Jivas. It is incorrect to equate jiva with atman. They aren't the same thing at all. The Atman is Brahman and transcends the biological. Jiva - as Dr Radhakrishnan correctly states in the introduction to his Principal Upanishads - refers to the biological aspect of creatures that is nonetheless connected with their spiritual nature. If Jiva was identical with Atman then the word Jivanmukta would make no sense. There would be nothing to liberate. But jivanmukta means a liberated individual. Such a being is liberated because - as you yourself know - they have realised themselves as atman which formerly as a common or garden jiva they had not realised. User:Langdell 20th November 2006

Jivas and atman

Although what you say about Dvaita is true, there is no difference of opinion between advaita and dvaita regarding the fact that a jiva is a living creature. Your article does not assert this. Your article says that a jiva is an immortal soul. This is incorrect and does not represent the view of dvaita. Only that which is unconditioned is immortal wheras a living creature is conditioned by factors such as environment and mind. The soul of a jiva (jivatman) is itself conditioned, that is a basic premise of the dvaita school. Becuase it is conditioned it is not identical with Brahman. Only a liberated person, a jivanmukta, has removed the conditioning from his soul so that when he dies he does not reincarnate into another body. He merges with the unconditioned mahatman. I think it's unfair of you therefore to say that my rendering is one-sided when it simply reflects the consensus view on the subject. User: Langdell 20th November 2006

some more

Hello Gouranga. These are the opening two sentences from 'The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions' entry on Jiva: 'Jiva (Skt.,'living'). In Hinduism, the living self which is engaged in the world and which identifies itself with mind and body as empirically real. The true self is atman, which is the One pervading all appearance...' Then here is page 90 from Radhakrishnan's Principal Upanishads: ' Jiva is literally 'that which breathes', from jīv, 'to breathe.' It referred originally to the biological aspect of man's nature which goes on throughout life, in waking, dream and sleep. It is called purusa in the sense of puri-saya or 'that which dwells in the citadel of the heart.' This means that the biological serves the ends of another, the soul or psyche. It is this soul which reaps the fruits of deeds and survives the death of the physical body...' Now doesn't this soul after death take up residence in another body because it has been conditioned by worldly desires to pursue varous aims? It believes in itself as an independently existing ego not realising that its true nature is atman. That is, unless it has achieved renunciation of worldly aims and pursued brahmacarya. So I feel that your definition of jiva as the immortal essence of a living being is incorrect. The immortal essence is atman which simplistically is pure consciousness but the soul of a jiva is a conditioned phenomenon that acts as the animus of the living creature. The Lord Buddha taught that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, in other words mortal, they do not remain forever. Do you understand? The jivatman that has not attained liberation is not an immortal essence. It is a conditioned phenomenon. Only the unconditioned is immortal. This is the atman that can be realised through renunciation. Or am I missing something here? Do tell. User:Langdell 20th November 2006

I am so thankful and happy...

I think, you owe the true credit for the followings.

I thought of making an article "Shrinathji" on Wikipedia. I found it already existed as stub. I was so happy and delighted to see external web-site incorporated by you. "Shree Krishna Sharanam Mam:" chanting made my morning pleasant.

Thank you so much. I am doing non-sense now in the process of making an article. With the blessings of "Shrinathji", I will certainly be instrumental in creation of this article.

I look for your help and well wishes.

Thanks once again.

swadhyayee 03:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bluebot"

How true the words are; I am looking for your help....

== Words of a wise sage ==

"Don't be stuck up in a system. The system is required provided if you make progress towards the realization of the Goal. But if you simply follow a system but do not make advance in the matter of realizing the Goal, then it is simply labor of love. It has no value."

How true the words are! I am adding encyclopedic non-sense to article "Shrinathji". Hope that Lord Shrinathji will give me the strength to be "Pangum Langhayate Girim" in improving the article from stub stage.

I look for your help and well wishes.

swadhyayee 03:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Shrinathji

What was required is to change the language. I don't think entire removal is appropriate.

swadhyayee 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism etc

Hi Gouranga, are you getting as exasperated as I am about the user maleabroad's abusive tone, continual vandalism and inclusion of inappropriate, poorly written material in the Buddha as Vishnu article ? He/she causes havoc everywhere he/she pops up. I am inclined to have him/her dealt with formally by administrative sanctions. What do you think ?

Also, thanks for the courteous discussion on the differing interpretations of the BP passage. As you say, we shall have to agree to disgree -- judging from the amount of input you have made to the Swami Prabhupada article, I can surmise where you are coming from, although this interpretation is completely out of step with modern scholarship.

Best wishes, --Stephen Hodge 03:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gouranga, just an afterthought, if you're thinking of tackling the Vishnu Purana. You may know of this website already, but in case you don't, try googling GRETIL and see what they have on offer -- though I'm now assuming that you have some knowledge of Sanskrit.

Best wishes, --Stephen Hodge 01:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A formal award

I award this barnstar to GourangaUK for being a true haribhakt of Krishna and contributing to all the ISKCON articles. Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I can formally award you with the Hinduism Barnstar :) Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes I took down the Rama picture since it had an unknown copyright info...But I am probably going to replace it with the picture you have provided, very beautiful. Thanks for uploading!___Seadog ^♪ 13:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)13:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Isha Upanishad

Finally, I understood that my editings were being erased (by you) because I didn't give reference. Fair enough.

Whereas I completely respect Prabhupad-maharaj's comments, I do realize that a literal translation (for all verses) would be a good and (a dogma-) neutral addition. Once this concept is accepted by all, I would add rest of the verses as well.

Is there such a thing as 'dogma neutral' when translating Indian religious texts? Better to show a range of views - all fully referenced. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 11:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Will you pl.

Will you pl. give your views on removal of entire discussion on Hinduism talk page about anti-Hindu rubbish propaganda, if we have to retain mischievous anti-Hindu website links of non-Hindus just to retain the discussion. This is subversive way of having non-sense on Hinduism. swadhyayee 01:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Satvata Tantra

Gouranga, I respectfully disagree. It seems like a Gaudiya Vaishnavite text. The first line of the Vishnu article reads, Krishna assumes expansions of. It's a semantic difference but other Vaishnavite saints such as Ramanuja always state the reverse, Sriman Narayana assumes the form of Krishna, for example. see for example, http://www.srivaishnavan.com/tomcat/srivaish1.html "2. The Mahabharata : The second epic, Mahabharata has several instances where the supremacy of Lord Vishnu in his avatara as Sri Krishna is established."

Also, srivaishnavism believes that Vishnu assumes five forms, not three. Please see, http://www.srivaishnavan.com/tomcat/srivaish3.html Perhaps you can cite this and write in wikipedia.

Please change. Thanks,

Raj2004 00:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it. Raj2004 02:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC) No problem, Gouranga I appreciate you taking the time to review.

I was raised in the smarta advaita tradition and for me I have always been adopting the srivaishnavite version. I was not as familiar with the Gaudiya Vaishnavite view.

Raj2004 00:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Gouranga I was not familiar with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, a Bengal school. SriVaishnavism is a Tamil Vaishnavite school.

Raj2004 01:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hindu iconography

Just wanted to drop a message to say that I really like the improvements you have made to Hindu iconography. I had branched off the page from Hinduism a week back and am glad to see its expansion. Abecedare 16:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I had picked up the Agni reference for Shiva Ling from "Thus the solid ling or linga (symbol, image) representing sacrificial fire during the worship of Agni was created originally as a duplicate of yajna flame. [1]. It is not a RS though, and doesn't sound right to me either. In fact, I notice a puritanical and IMO misbegotten attempt to disassociate the Shiva Ling symbol from the phallus - see Lingam page for example which does not even mention phallus or reference yoni. But I am not ready to enter the debate yet, unless I have backed my opinions with reliable references. :-) Abecedare 16:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Gaudiya Vaishnvaism and Dvaita

Yes, Gorounga, there are similarities betwen srivaishnavism and Gaudiya. But followers of Madhva disagree vehemently with Gaudiya...

Not that it matters, are you from India or a Western convert to Vaishnavism? I was born in the US and am from parents from Karnataka

Raj2004 15:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hindu

Hi, Gouranga, I was wondering whether you or other editors can replace the image (i.e., Khajuraho at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu#Religion_for_the_common_Hindu with a non-sexual image? It gives the wrong impression about the article, religion for the common Hindu.

Thanks, Raj2004 14:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks very much, Gouranga I appreciate it!!!

Raj2004 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Varnas and Shudra Concept

Please don't misunderstand. There is nothing insulting to call any Hindu a shudra. Understand Varnashrama dharma in a present situation. Also read ShivDharma concept in Maharashtr. If Maratha feel insuting to be called as Shudra then you can convert to other religion. Being lower-cast to Brahmins is Dharma for every Hindu. Shudra123 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Brahmin i.e. Hindu priest population is only 1% very few are in Military i.e. Kshtriya OR Business i.e. Vaishya rest al are Shudras. So our population in India will be more than 800 million. Thousands of my Shudra Hindu brothers can write on wikipedia. It is not a personal property of few anti-Hindu people. Better you read Varnas OK.Shudra123 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)