User talk:GourangaUK/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

temple: Jagannath Temple (Puri)[edit]

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

Jagannath Temple[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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...[edit]

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....[edit]

== 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


I just noticed this comment from a user like me .... For a Hindu living in India all this life, I find it strange that people refer to the Shiva Lingam as a representation of the phallus... It is pretty strange to me, that these users are not aware of the ideological differences, between mainstream Hinduism and the tantric leaning ideologies... Some of the books which are used as references also, err on this very same point, leading to repeated discussions on this very same subject... Further most puranas and the vedas are not to be simply transliterated word-by-word, you will never get the deep meaning, the essence, that it was intended to convey ....

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.19.225.8 (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Gaudiya Vaishnvaism and Dvaita[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Let's talk something at talk page of Shrinathji.[edit]

GourangaUK,

You may be right but I was not happy of your removing Darshan details. I know, my edits may not be encyclopedic. I would have been happy if you would have made Darshans in encyclopedic language. What good we have achieved? You have not added anything else thenafter. Why do people go to Nathdwara? Isn't going to Nathdwara rejuvenating? Is various Darshans, offering of flowers, vegetables, grains, dryfruits not something novel and worth knowing? Can we not write about gold mills?

swadhyayee 02:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hindu[edit]

Why don't u put u r views on talk page in detail?? ChaturVarna is the basis of Hindu Religion and society. Veda, Geeta, DharmaShastras all support ChaturVarna. At least I feel that is the right way of life because any born Shudra can become Brahmin. Brahmin-gaand-maaru 21:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Offensive user name[edit]

Kindly see the talk page of 'Hindu'. A user has taken up an offensive user name. Can anything done about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.178.10.68 (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Achintya Bheda Abheda[edit]

Gouranga, excellent article on Achintya Bheda Abheda. I knew Chaityanji's philosophy but your article is easy to understand for the beginner.

Raj2004 03:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC) No problem. Raj2004 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Will you pl. see my today's views on Hinduism.[edit]

Will you pl. see my today's views on Hinduism. swadhyayee 13:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been so many changes on both the main article and discussion page? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 19:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not put any comments other than I requested you to see. This you could have done by seeing history of talk page of Hinduism. When the article seems to be over, someone tried to push Ninan nuisance in Hinduism, then comes someone with idea or mentioning conversation to christainity. Latest is sex pervert subject. I just felt that we should resist such acts which I feel are deliberate from perverts. swadhyayee 02:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to Talk:Hinduism participants[edit]

Namaste. You may have been involved in a discussion on Talk:Hinduism recently moved to The Hinduism notice board. If you wish to continue said topics please discuss on the noticeboard. Also please add WP:HNB to your watchlist, so we can help out all the WP:HINDU editors when needed. Thanks.Bakaman 05:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

GourangaUK[edit]

GourangaUK,

I could not locate C9" who commented here [[2]] that more than 90% Hindus are non-veg and eat beaf.

Did you pick up this from somewhere and posted here? How could one have it without reflecting the contributor in history? Was it very old when you responded? swadhyayee 16:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hindu missionaries[edit]

You probably can fill this faster than I can.Bakaman 18:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Harihara[edit]

Gouranga, is there a policy against posting commercial website images? The murti looked nice.

Happy New Year!

Raj2004 15:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks, Gouranga for the clarification. Please draw it!

Raj2004 21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks, Gouranga Beautiful!

Raj2004 14:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi[edit]

Mr. Gouranga, I would like you to express whatever views you have on "Ayyavazhi" being included as a full-fledged religion in the Dhramic Religions article. I am having a debate with another member who insists that Ayyavazhi is a religion and must be included under Dharmic religions. Again I'm not asking you to take sides, just your own opinion on this. IAF

Free will[edit]

Thanks Gouranga I am a little now confused now. The view of fate in Advaita seems to contradict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Hinduism#Advaita_Vedanta, which supports free will

Raj2004 01:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week[edit]

You have been invited to help improve the article Sita Ram Goel in this weeks's Hinduism collaboration. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. See also these related articles. [3]

You can also vote for next's week collaboration at the project page: Wikipedia:Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week. Unfortunately, the Collaboration site is little known, that's why the reminder. --Bondego 14:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hindus who are creationists[edit]

What part of SUPPOSEDLY do you not understand???--Filll 22:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The above comment was added in response to these two edits: [4] Gouranga(UK) 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies but it took about 24 hours for external editors to remove ALL content from the article just about. References. Links. Text. I am trying very hard to be sensitive to Hindus. I get it that Hindus think ISKCON are not Hindus. I get that people are very sensitive about many things. I want to be fair but still express this, while showing that there are disputed controversial views that exist. Just removing things without correcting them is destructive, because in an hour or two the entire article will be gone. I have seen it before so I am trying now desperately to write it in a nonoffensive way, while still trying to alert people to the fact that a controversy exists. This is very difficult when others are removing huge pieces of the text. I already moved the article because people were so upset about the title, all while professing to not be offended but meanwhile clearly FURIOUS and unable to give me time to try to understand the sensitivities and correct it. I am NOT indian. I am NOT hindu. I do not want to step on toes, but I want to describe a controversy with citations. Cited material is not trash you can just remove if it offends you. And I am adding tons of weasel words to make sure people do not think that a small group are not casting asperions on all of Hinduism. So please bear with me. --Filll 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Filli, Hindus dont think ISKCON are not Hindus, merely that ISKCON is not mainstream. People that worships Krishna and reveres the Gita are definitely Hindu. I myself think sometimes though, that ISKCON somethimes deviates from the Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Ching-Thang Khomba style of Gauddiya Vaishnavism whch categorizes the belief.Bakaman 03:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rama raksha stotra and Narayana Kavacha[edit]

Hi, Gouranga, I and others have helped write articles on Vishnu sahasranama If you know can write on famous bhajans such as Rama raksha stotra and Narayana Kavacha? I don't have much knowledge about them.

Thanks.

Raj2004 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks, Gouranga I didn't know either about Rama raksha stotra and Narayana Kavacha.

Raj2004 00:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

new article[edit]

Anuradha Dooney aka Anuradha Devi Dasi. She's an ISKCON figure in Britain I think.Bakaman 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Reply - She's one of the "up there" people in the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. Actually even though I think some of ISKCON's practices are weird, I have the utmost respect for their devotion. I would not be able to bring Category:Converts to Hinduism, Category:Gaudiya religious figures or Category:American Hindus to respectable numbers had it not been for ISKCON's efforts. Btw, do you know of ISKCON related people that ould be categorized under Category:Hindu missionaries ? Bakaman 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Tirupathi Venkateshwara Temple[edit]

Why did you remove info box? mlpkr 00:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will take a picture when I visit next time. We also need that picture for other articles like Vijayanagara architecture. mlpkr 10:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Free will[edit]

You're welcome, Gouranga someone had written a free will-hinduism section in another wikipedia link and I had pasted much of the info there.

Raj2004 10:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

shiva[edit]

Yes, it seems to be a disaster. I myself am not very religious at all but the page looks to be a jumble of unrelated religio-cruft. Posting on Hinduism notice board may net some results (as there are users with more knowledge than me who would be delighted to make it good). ( Bakaman 21:50, 16 January 2007)

samadhi[edit]

under heading Analogous concepts:

Am starting to catch up on the wiki protocols.

I see that the internal link to "archetypal" is removed and agree that the wiki article it pointed to deals with the concept in psychoanalysis and that the other disambiguation definitions aren't helpful- so best to leave it as you have it so it can be intuited as to its implication.

Am working on some references tho within the authoritative religious doctrine and dharma there appears much contradiction and to quote Whitehead, Ken Wilber, Lee Pulos, Kenneth Ring, P.M.H. Atwater although published- what qualifies them as "knowers" of secular samadhi? Regards Mayagaia 23:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Vish[edit]

Gouranga, please desist from reverting any entry in the article on Hindu if the merit of the subject matter is not apparent to you. Dr. Vish Ayengar has been held in high esteem by scholars including in the United States.Kanchanamala 13:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


replacing banglapedia.search.com.bd[edit]

Thanks for your help replacing this advertised mirror with the cleaner original sites. Keep up the good work! --BozMo talk 22:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

moving of Hindu scriptures template in Bhagavat Gita[edit]

I very much like the picture of Krishna but I have moved the template to the top of the article to help people with less knowledge of Hindu scriptures to navigate more easily. In the other scriptures it is also at the top of the article. Inwind 14:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

vandalism[edit]

How do i report vandalism and irresponisble reverts by user:brownguy20. He does not seem to respond to invitations to discuss. SV 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Chaitanya[edit]

Why are you keep undoing my changes to the Chaitanya article? SDas

Hello SDas, I reverted some of your edits to the article Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as I felt they were promoting a certain pro-Orissa pov. I have since added the mention of Orissa back into the main introduction as it was missing entirely beforehand, and must thank you for pointing this out and for adding the external link and fixing some other statements. I can understand how devotees from both Bengal and Orissa would like to claim Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as their own (who wouldn't), but I don't think that kind of debate should be given any particular importance in Wikipedia. As an avatar of Krishna you could similarly argue that Chaitanya was above any such earthly denomination. Best Wishes & Hare Krishna, ys Gouranga(UK) 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi GourangaUK,
Why do you assume that inserting one or two facts that simply happen to pertain to an ethnic group, backed up by citations to published, scholarly material (not simple links) become promotional? (To begin with, I am nowhere close to being a devotee of Chaitanya :-) - just a university academician interested in the history/archaeology of the Orissan region of India amongst other things.)
One could in a similar vein argue that the current version has a strong Bengali tilt. (For instance, notice that the "most popular" biography is a Bengali one (a POV). The tree under which Chaitanya was born is referred to as a "Nimba" tree, which is Bengali instead of the standard English "Neem". Bengal is referred to as Chaitanya's "homeland", in spite of you acknowledging that that claim is highly controversial. It is "Bengal and Orissa" everywhere instead of "Orissa and West Bengal" appearing 50% of the time. Since when is the festival at Kheturi so "famous"? And so on....) All that of course does not make your authorship promotional of anything as I am sure you are a perfectly neutral author.
But more than promoting the views of any particular ethnic group, the entire article in my opinion has strong religious overtones (for instance the usage of terms such as "meditational trances", "divine ecstasy" or the numerous links that take you to sites full of religious jumbo-mumbo, instead of citations to scholarly works as I had provided. Why, even the very name of the article is Chaitanya "Mahaprabhu" (="Great God")! A section of Hindus may consider him to be some sort of divine being, but for the rest of humanity, Chaitanya is simply a historical figure.) Adding non-controversial historical facts, such as a simple sentence or two about his ancestry only makes the article look more neutral, not less.
Perhaps a compromise would be to include a two sentence about his Jajpur roots, but not anything more about his ancestry. I will of course add stuff about his impact on Orissan culture at a later stage in Section 3 as that is very relevant here.
Warm regards,
SDas
Dear SDas, I agree with you about the Neem tree, especially as it makes more sense in regards to the name 'Neemai' as opposed to 'Nimba' and have edited accordingly. As Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was born and spent his first 24 years in Bengal it is natural that the area is mentioned a number of times, and given first in statements regarding Bengal and Orissa. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 20:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi GourangaUK, You didn't get the point. I wasn't asking you to correct those POVs. There were many more POVs, both ethnocentric and religious ones. In fact, if one were to nitpick, almost 50% of the article can be called POV. The point is, one sentence or two about his ancestry actually IMPROVES the article, which I will reinsert into the article. I will make doubly sure that it is neutral and entirely NPOV. Kindly do not keep reverting back to your own version. It will be a simple change only, I promise. SDas

Samadhi[edit]

Very happy to see your very good improvements to the Samadhi article. Thank you. Cott12 Talk 15:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

New Articles[edit]

If you have any time, there's always room for improvements :) YsD Chopper Dave 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Minus 1 Vishnujana article - Speedy Delete + admin's who can't wait a few hours for extra references (though they agreed to)... I'll rebuild it later. Chopper Dave 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote the Vishnujana Swami article.. Chopper Dave 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Harikesa Swami article is up. I have invited 'Hari' to add to the article, so don't be surprised if we get an additional editor/content provider. Sadly not much information about him is available on the internet, prior to the 'fall', so hopefully he can add some genuine knowledge. Chopper Dave 00:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Vish Ayengar[edit]

Gouranga, one of the things which has attracted my interest is the statement of Dr. Vish Ayengar. When I first read it, I found it to be quite relevant where it was. Then I read Aupmanyav's comment on it. After a while, it was removed by one of our fellow editors. Then the statement was back with a citation. And now you have changed it and moved it to another section. May I give my take in this matter. Gouranga, the section Further usage reads: "...Since then, various definitions have been proposed by scholars like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who tried to define it as religion based on the Vedas. ... Hinduism encompasses a wide diversity of beliefs, although most Hindus believe in a Supreme Being ..., others follow traditions more akin to atheism and yet both are still considered as followers of Hinduism." Gouranga, Tilak refers to the Vedas, and the editorial statement refers to "traditions more akin to atheism". Following it, the statement that "According to Vish Ayengar (or Dr. Vish Ayengar, or Dr. Vishwanath Ayengar), all the spiritual traditions of India are inspired by the Vedas." makes perfect sense, and, in my humble opinion, it belongs there as quite relevant to that section. Also, may I suggest that you should not have anything against mentioning the name of a contemporary scholar. Gouranga, may I hope that you will reconsider reverting your edit? Kanchanamala 07:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gouranga. As we say in India, ' vijayee bhava', may you be victorious.Kanchanamala 00:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Samadhi[edit]

Hi Goruranga- Appreciate the link to the Bhagavad-gita verses- and am just beginning to sort out the relationships of my Samadhi experience to these classical descriptions. Realize the ambivalence regarding the compendium of definitions for Samadhi and started a webpage at http://geocities.com/maya-gaia/advaita_experience.html which is a presentation of my notes on the first section of a 5-part essay by Dr. John Glenn Friesen on Abhishiktananda's Non-Monistic Advaitic Experience- in which he goes into extensive detail in describing not only Ab's Samadhi experience but that of Sri Ramana Maharshi and the conspicuous contradiction regarding Ramana's distinction between nirvikalpa and sahaja samadhi and the alternate views regarding monism and non-duality with Shankara. Regards Mayagaia 16:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

ISKCON Article[edit]

"Of the eleven, three are still actively preaching within ISKCON". Hare Krishna Prabhuji. Bhavananda is actually still part of ISKCON, and though he isn't exactly 'actively preaching', I heard he gives the occasional class. Do you think we should jump that three up to four? Let me know what you think. Ys Chopper Dave 08:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on the Ganesha Purana[edit]

I appreciate your nomination of the Ganesha Purana for GA status and pray that the nomination may attract more editors to work on it. At present it is really just a brief overview and much can be done to improve it. I pray that it will attract the attention of some experienced editors who share interest in these materials. Buddhipriya 16:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gouranga, nominating Ganesh Purana for GA was a great idea ! I have been following the article since its creation by Buddhipriya, and I think it provides an excellent template for what Hinduism related articles should aim for. Abecedare 21:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Krishna chronology[edit]

Can you please take a look at my comments on the Krishna Talk page and provide feedback ?
A cursory google search did not reveal any other source (besides the Yahoo article and references to the Yahoo article) attesting to wide acceptance of the Swami Gyananand Saraswati's claims or even his background (except that he is at Adi Jagadguru Shankaracharya Vedic Research Institute, which unfortunately does not seem to have a website). Do you have any further background information on this  ? Thanks. Abecedare 20:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for overhearing your question, but on Wikipedia there seems to be no way for two people to have a conversation except by shouting to one another across the courtyard. The claims you mention are a good example of a general issue that concerns me about many articles in the Hinduism section, which often are inconsistent in the level of referencing that are required. We must be sensitive to the fact in matters of faith it is important to show respect for all views. At the same time, has there been some general consensus reached within the Hinduism project regarding what type of referencing is considered standard? Buddhipriya 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Narada's Bhakti Sutra[edit]

I see from the edit history of Narad Bhakti Sutra that you have some interest in this wonderful scripture. There is a notice on the page regarding its possible move to Wikisource, and I was wondering if you have any particular interest in collaborating to improve the article and check the Sanskrit over. The version that I have is with the commentary by Swami Prahavananda ISBN 81-7120-506-2. I post this to your talk page rather than to the topic page because I simply wanted to test the waters. Buddhipriya 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Gita changes[edit]

Namaste Gourangaji,

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and am not sure I've found the best way to contact you.

Are you the person reversing my addition to the Bhagavad Gita's external links? This new edition is better than almost all previous translations (including many of the others listed in the external links section) and should be brought to the attention of the Wikipedia readership in some way.

Would you like to do it yourself in a different way? Should it be part of the section on translations (or the See Also section) higher on the page?

Please enlighten me with your thoughts on this matter.

sfauthor@aol.com

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Sfauthor (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Devotional cult[edit]

The article was specifically written for Dinesh's FA article and was meant to broaden the concept from the Bhakti movement you mention. The FA reviews clearly do not understand that Hinduism is not a religion in the same way as Westerners might think of it. I probably need to expand the article more but the point was supposed to be the devotional cults have existed for more than two thousand years in India. The only alternative to me writing the article was to use the word sect which we did not want to do. Any mention of Bhakti for our link would not do. Obviously I need to explain it much more if there is any confusion, which clearly there is if you are suggesting a merge. Please do not merge it. I used the term because that is what the academic literature uses for the concept I am trying to explain. My references use it or a similar term. Bhakti is only a specific example of a general concept and was a formal movement. That is not what we want. Sincerely, Mattisse 23:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote it too fast this afternoon. I'll change the beginning completely so that it does not even mention Bhakti. If I mention Bhakti at all, I'll make it clear that Bhakti was only the point at which it became a formal term for that particular religion. Anthropological literature uses that term as a general one. It's unfortunate aspect of Wikipedia that general terms get appropriated by specific examples. Maybe I could rename it Devotion cult (general) or something. We are trying to avoid a religious article and make it more anthropological to avoid all the misconceptions about Hinduism in the FA editors. Sincerely, Mattisse 23:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Devotional traditions[edit]

It is not a tradition. It is an alternative to the word sect. The research literature uses the term devotional cults in talking about thousands of years of Indian history. I could use the term Hindu devotionalism as that is used in one source article -- but I don't think that is a real word and our use is broader than just strict Hinduism, or one cult of Hinduism. It is unfortunate that one specific cult has appropriated the term so that none of the others can use it. Sincerely, Mattisse 23:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Change name[edit]

I could change the name to Hindu devotional cults, making it clear that I am talking about the general movement of history and not one particular religious sect. How about that? And I won't even mention the cult you were concerned about, because I'm talking broadly over thousands of years. Sincerely, --Mattisse 00:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)