Talk:Satcitananda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hinduism / Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Hindu philosophy (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject India (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Tulsidas Section[edit]

Reading up this section, I see following sentence which does not seem fit for this (or any) article. I am going to take it out, in a day or two, please discuss here if anyone has any issues.

"Though Ram seems like a human by eventually succumbing to death, not knowing where his wife is when she is stolen, and grieving wildly for her, thus seeming to go against each part of being Sat, Chit and Ananda, he still somehow is- this is the perplexing yet somehow still compelling faith of Tulsidas." Duty2love (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

I've altered the spelling in Devanāgarī. In Classical Sanksrit the anusvāra ं is avoided in this case. While it is possible to write ānanda (आनन्द) as ānaṃda (आनंद), in practice one doesn't. mahaabaala (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Highest Reality[edit]

"This sublime blissful experience of the boundless, pure consciousness is a glimpse of ultimate reality" could also be transcribed as "This sublime insight is the highest (non-sublatible) Reality". Unfortunately, that's my personal interpretation, so comments would be welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

I don't know how to properly format or cite this, but the pronunciation should be included, i.e.:

[Sat-cit-a·nan·da : suht-chit-ah-nuhn-duh;  IPA: /ˈsʌtˈtʃɪtɑˈnʌndə/]  –sat-cit-ananda. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sat-cit-ananda (accessed: March 09, 2013).
~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Go ahead, I'dd say. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Crystal Clear action edit add.png Added to footnote. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Aurobindo stuff - harmless but drivel[edit]

Aurobindo is one of those guys with great PR. All of his teachings are either common truths found in all hindu teachings, or else self-referential circular reasoning like the "evolutionary" teachings.

He is like a Kardashian of Hinduism. (Mr. Rolls Royce was a more recent example.)

Sorry I could not put this more academically, but there you are.162.205.217.211 (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Satcitananda#Etymology[edit]

(copy-pasting Jayaguru-Shishya suggestion from my talk page)

Greetings! What do you think of this source at Satcitananda#Etymology: bienfaits de la méditation: Meaning of the word “Satcitananda” (Sat Chit Ananda)[1]? I am not totally convinced that it'd be the best one available, and I think the readability of the section could be improved a lot by utilizing the Monier-Williams source alone. What do you think? :-P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: Indeed. You are right. If there is a reliable source, not a website, that discusses Maharishi's view on satcitananda, we can add a summary from it to the main article near the Aurobindo section? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree, Ms Sarah Welch. I think it'd benefit the Etymology section, and move the Maharishi's views to a more appropriate place. I can have a look tomorrow if such RS is available out there! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

request quotation[edit]

@Jayaguru-Shishya: I am puzzled by your tagging. For example:

<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/tejobindu.pdf |title= तेजोबिन्दु (Tejobindu Upanishad)|accessdate=12 January 2016| language = Sanskrit|last= Hattangadi| first= Sunder| year= 2015 | page = 8}}; Quote: नित्यशुद्धचिदानन्दसत्तामात्रोऽहमव्ययः । नित्यबुद्धविशुद्धैकसच्चिदानन्दमस्म्यहम् ॥</ref>{{Request quotation|date=February 2016}}

The quote is right there, already !! What is this tag for? Please explain why you added that tag? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Ms Sarah Welch. I think you must have missed the Edit Summary I left[2]: {{Request quotation}} added (per WP:NONENG). It says that:

As with [...] a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided [...] When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote.

I hope this helps! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: Doesn't this satisfy that requirement: Quote: नित्यशुद्धचिदानन्दसत्तामात्रोऽहमव्ययः । नित्यबुद्धविशुद्धैकसच्चिदानन्दमस्म्यहम् ॥ ? The translation is in the text, with source, that follows. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Spellings[edit]

@Jayaguru Shishya: I've replaced the different spelling variants with a consistent spelling as per the lead (where I'd added all the variants). Unless there is a distinct meaning attributed to a particular spelling, it is pointless and confusing to pepper the article with all these variants. The spellings I've changed are also not part of a quote and there is no need to stick to the variant used in any associated source.

Also note that the date for Werner edition should actually point to 1997 or specify it as the original date. 2005 is the ebook reprint.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, Cpt.a.haddock! I agree, we could choose one spelling and use it consistently throughout the article. I added a plenty of sources though, and none of them could verify the spelling you preferred. Indeed, all the material should be verifiable and therefore we should WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Holdrege 2004[edit]

Hi, Ms Sarah Welch. I noticed you provided a quotation recently[3], just like requested. I was wondering though, how does the quotation verify the material in the article? I mean, it says no thing about "ultimate reality", "sacchidananda", "Vishnu", "Shiva", or "Shakti". Thanks in advance! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: Instead of typing up pages and large quotes, which would violate fair use of copyrighted material principle, I have broken the sentence and provided WP:RS item by item. Please verify. Do note that we need to reword the original, to avoid WP:Copyvio. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)