Talk:Hinduism

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10

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.

Problems with introduction

As always, I have the following problems with the introduction:

1. Hindu Dharma originated in the Indian subcontinent: Hindu Dharma has two constituents. First the indigenous beliefs (characterised by Shiva, Bhairava, Kuber, the myriad Mother Godesses, and the various avataras of Vishnu who find no mention in the Vedas). The second is the most important book in Hindu philosophy, the Veda, which according to most scholars, Indian as well as western, originated outside India. So Hindu Dharma is a mix of the indigenous philosophy and that which came from outside India.

2. Hindus believe in a supreme cosmic spirit: All hindus do not believe in such a cosmic spirit. Many (no figures, just as those also who added the cosmic spirit angle in the introduction have no figures about how many believe in a cosmic spirit). The fact is that Aryans and indigenous Hindus, through the history and presently worship many Gods which include the Aryan Indra, Surya, Agni, etc. and the indigenous Ganesha, Kartikeya, Hanuman, etc. Some people may consider that these all Gods and Godesses whose idols we find in each temple separately, whose auspicious days are celebrated separately, who are worshipped with different chants are different forms of the same cosmic spirit, but that does not compell other people to agree to agree to their views. Hinduism is clearly polytheistic also. It is unfortunate that some people remove such edits without even going into any discussion. It has happened before. A large number of hindus who believe in Advaita, the man/God difference does not make any sense, 'Purnamadah, Purnamidam, Purnat purnamudacyate; Purnasya Purnamadaya, Purnameva Vashisyate'. Who, here, now, is bent on making Hinduism in an exclusively monotheistic religion?

3. This leaves out some old philosophies and their followers like Nireeshwar Samkhya, Poorva Mimamsa, Vaisesika, and the modern science-influenced Hindus who do not believe in God/Gods, though they believe just as strongly in Indian traditions like any other theist Hindu.

I intend to make the necessary changes and invite those who may have objections to explain their views here. Aupmanyav 10:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Both views are found in Hinduism. Go ahead and make the changes. When doing so, I humbly request that you remember 3 things:

1. Consider whether the edits actually help to clarify the article for people who are not familiar with Hinduism (The article should highlight the religion's key points--ie, those which are common to most Hindus--otherwise it will get too detailed and confusing to be a meaninguful introduction to the religion as a whole. It seems to me that the main article should include only a few of the most important differences among denominations, but it should be focused on simialarities for the sake of clarity. Then the differences can be explored in more detail in the articles dealing with each individual sect.
2. Consider the length of the article.
3. If anything you say is at all controversial, you should have a citation for it.

As for whether the Vedas originated outside India, I suppose we can mention that if you think it is important (and you have a citation for it), but to me it doesn't seem that important for purposes of this article, and definately not for the the introduction. Wherever they originated, their main influence throughout history was in South Asia. HeBhagawan 13:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy editing! HeBhagawan 13:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, the thought of the Vedas originating outside of India is pure bakwaas.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am looking for some pundit who could satisfactorily explain to me as to why Vedas mention 1. seven suryas and the eighth, Martanda, who was born dead, 2. Navagwahs and Dashagwahs, the brahmins who would finish their satra in nine or ten months (Avesta even mentions Hapta-gu, those with seven-month year), 3. Ushas, the thirty sisters, who delayed the appearance of sun, and 4. Ati-Ratra, which was never more than a 100 days. Aupmanyav 07:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

More on Denominations

As other editors noted above, the labels Shaivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism, etc;, are somewhat artificial. These are broad labels applied by scholars--and, I believe, originally by western scholars--more than by ordinary Hindus themselves. Many, many Hindus do not identify strongly with any particular "denomination." They worship the same ishta devatā that their parents worshiped, and they accept the teachings of all the scriptures in a general way--but not usually in a way that is antagonistic to other denominations. For this reason, my preference would be not to give undue attention in the main Hinduism article to the differences between the "denominations." We don't want to give the impression that a central feature of Hinduism is antagonism among denominations, becasue this is not the case. It is probably the most internally harmonious of the world's major religions. Compare Hinduism with Christianity, for example. Most Catholics would never think of entering a Protestant church--in fact the Pope forbids it. But a Shaiva would have no problem saluting Sri Krishna in a Krishna temple. Of course, there will be some people who do not have such an inclusive attitude, but tolerance seems to be the rule in Hinduism, and intolerance is the exception. HeBhagawan 16:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. Another point is that in many Shaivist mandirs for example, there is a Vishnu murti, but it is smaller and placed in a small corner and it is the same vice versa. After all, Shiva is appears in the Vishnu Sahasranama and Vishnu is also a name in the Shiva sahasranama. The Shaiva Purans have stories abotu Shiv creating Vishnu, then Brahma. The Vaishnav Purans have stories about Vishnu creating Brahma and Shiv. Shaktas believe Mata Devi created all three. So all the main gods are still acknowledged in each denomination. It is just the order of importance which is different. Gizza^{Chat ©} 22:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Gizza and He Bhagwan, I agree with you. I myself wrote the citations you are now quoting and believe that Vishnu and Shiva are different aspects of the same God. But Vaishnavites do not agree. see Parsara bhatta's commentary on Vishnu sahasranama and Madhva's beliefs.

Raj2004 00:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously c'mon, the majority of Hindus really dont care whether Visnu or Siva or Murugan are on the murti. Lets not vivisect a religion. There hasnt been any "dharmayuddh" between Vaisnavites, Saivites, and Smartas, so its OR to call Hinduism a bunch of different religions.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't want to push my own beliefs but I think most Vaishnavites still believe Shiva is a minor deva and Shaivites believe Vishnu is a minor deva. The respective denominations both never claim that either Shiva or Vishnu doesn't exist. I have read Hare Krishna books which say chanting mantras like Om Namah Sivaya and the Gayatri Mantra isn't bad at all. They just believe that the Hare Krishna mantra is the best and quickest method to become one with the Paratma/Krishna, hence it is the mantra that everybody should chant. One book by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada even encouraged Christians to chant "Hare Jesus Christ!" Interestingly, most of the Hindu Wikipedians (but of course not all) leans towards Smarta/Religious pluralism beliefs. Also many Hindus sects and cults, which are never called smarta, if one logically thinks about them are smarta. Eg. Gandhism and Hindutva (it attempts to unite all Hindus). Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The view of Hinduism believing in equivalent forms of God is prevalent among those who follow Advaita, especially the vast majority of learned Brahmins who were smarta. But Vaishnavites don't believe that and the dvaita and Gaudiya Vaishnavites believe that and they are NOT minor sects.

For example, the Dvaita school holds Vishnu alone to be the supreme God and Shiva as subordinate to Vishnu and interpret the Puranas differently. For example, Vijayindra Tîrtha, a Dvaita scholar interprets the 18 puranas differently. He interprets that the Vaishnavite puranas as satvic and Shaivite puranas as tamasic and that only satvic puranas are considered to be authorative. In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Shiva is considered the best of devotee of Vishnu (vaisnavanam yatha sambhu) and also an aspect of Vishnu but not the same as Vishnu. He is not equivalent to a living entity or jiva. Shiva is also viewed as subservient to lord Vishnu, although it is still understood that he is above the category of an ordinary jiva. The example of milk and yogurt is used to describe their difference in Brahma Samhita. For example, Prabhupada, founder of ISKCON commented that Śiva is not actually like a living entity, but he is not Vishnu and his position is somewhere between Vishnu and Brahmā, the living entity. Shiva, considered to be like yogurt but yogurt is nothing but transformed milk; nonetheless, yogurt cannot be accepted as milk. Similarly, Lord Śiva holds almost all the powers of Lord Vishnu and he is also above the qualities of the living entity, but he is not exactly like Vishnu, just as yogurt, although transformed milk, is not exactly like milk.

However, other Vaishnavite followers, such as Swaminarayan, founder of the Hindu Swaminarayan sect, differ and hold that Vishnu and Shiva are different aspects of the same God. However, the Swaminarayan view is a minority view among Vaishnavites.

My own citations from Trimurti article.

Raj2004 01:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I guarantee you all that we are not going to prove/disprove dualism or monism, this is an ongoing intellectual debate that has existed for a very long time, discussed among thinkers far greater than us. The important thing to see is that it is still Hinduism. Someone, upon hearing the analogy of yogurt and milk might say, "Of course, yogurt is completely different from milk" while someone else might say "No, yogurt is the very same thing as milk". Neither person is committing a sin, but instead, by following that dharm which is associated with his thinking faithfully, he will reach the same place as his Hindu brother. Om Namahsivaya. Saiva suj 17:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to mention: in case there are any editors here who follow a monistic vision like advaita, please allow me to offer a perspective from the Shaivism we have in Kashmir, the purest monistic vision of the six Shaiva schools. In the beginning of the Satyuga, Lord Shiva took the form of Sri Swaccandanath, to illuminate the universe. From the various combinations of the five universal energies manifested in His five mouths, he expounded a total of ninety two shastras, called tantras. Of these, sixty four were, indeed, monistic, however, eighteen were bheda-bheda and ten were purely dualistic. This should make it clear why all of these schools are in fact representations of Truth, as they all emerged from, Truth. Om Namahsivaya. Saiva suj 18:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

True Core of Hinduism

Namaste, I as though there is a lot of confusion among non-Hindus, and maybe even some Hindus about the nature of our harmonious plurality of dharm. Sometimes, while reading the article, I myself get confused! Perhaps making clear the nature of this plurality would improve understanding, for those who have had little or narrow exposure. I believe if we formulate the solid core of universal to all Hindus--superceding Vaidika Parampara, we may be able to elucidate the essence.

Though I have an idea of what the core concepts are and should include, I would rather have everyone else contribute to a list, and add my own comments.

I know everyone already knows this, but I would like to reiterate that an undisputed essential of Hinduism is love, infinite love, and thus, notions of superiority of fundamentals must be excluded, and instead only pervasion must be discussed.

Also, instead of worrying about hierarchy and omissions, let us not delete any additions that are later disputed and questioned, but instead struck-through, or elucidated, with discussion in the following section.

Om Namahsivaya, Saiva suj 20:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I sort of intended for these essentials to be real concepts of Hinduism. I may have mislead you all by listing Love there, but that was sort of a little joke in reference to what I had written in this section, and to setup the format.

Om Namahsivaya. Saiva suj 18:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Essentials in the Core of Hinduism

1. Love :) Saiva suj 20:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Love for searching and understanding God (or the "truth" for the "Hindu atheists") Gizza^{Chat ©} 22:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Seeing God everywhere and in everything. HeBhagawan 04:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Samsara
5. Prasād :) (just kidding)HeBhagawan 05:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of the Essentials

1. Love is all you need :) Saiva suj 20:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
2. .
3. .
4. This is the kind of essential I had intended to be listed/discussed.

Happy Diwali!

May Lord Ganesh ji remove all the obstacles which are stopping this artice becoming featured, may Lakshmi ji provide the Wikipedians with enough light to overcome the dark/evil and may Saraswati ji educate the Wikipedians in the right spiritual and Wiki direction. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent Article

Although my life is too short to read the whole article (!), so far the page seems excellent, and as a Hindu I believe most of the page is up to high standards and accuracy. Well done Wikipedians! Bhaveer 16:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the introduction, the article says, "Most Hindus believe in a supreme cosmic spirit called Brahman...." However if you follow the link to Brahman, you read that it "...is more of a general and abstract term than a theological term to describe God...."

These two seem to contradict one another. Can someone add some clarifying text in either article?

Thanks. No, when Hindus who believe in advaita philosophy, they believe in saguna brahman. Vaishnavites disagree and belive that Vishnu is only Brahman.

Raj2004 09:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you not find out?

HeBhagawan,

Happy & Prosperous new year to you. The family members in which a child is born do not go to temples or offer any sort of Puja for 16 days from the birth of a child. It is known as Vrudhi Shutak, Vrudhi means increase. You are removing this particular fact of Hinduism. Probably, you may not be aware of this. Why don't you ask your known monks? I am not going to lose anything but when people from other religion find similarity, their feelings/attitude for people of other religions change. People feel there is similarity amongst ourselves. I came to know from someone that even Christain ladies do not go to church during days of menstruation. Such knowledge do make us happy that similar religious taboos or care for sanctity do exist in all religions.

Swadhyayee 15:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swadhyayee, Best wishes to you too. I don't completely understand what you think I removed, but take a look now at that section again now and tell me what you think. As for what Christian women do, you may be right that some observe something like that. I am not sure. HeBhagawan 16:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks HeBhagawan, Vrudhi Shutak refers to birth of a child in family. I don't think it is for one month. Right now as you placed it, Vrudhi Shutak and other Shutaks are terms for both events, birth of a child and death of a family member. Both the terms should be distinctly mentioned. Swadhyayee 02:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The numbers of days are not my edits. I'm not sure, but the exact numbers may vary depending on the region, caste, and denomination. Should we just leave the exact numbers of days out of it? HeBhagawan 03:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan!

What about distinguishing Vrudhi Shutak from Mrutak Shutak? You have now put them at par which gives wrong impression to a new reader. Though both, the birth of a child and the death of a family member is Shutak. The death of a family member is not known as Vrudhi Shutak or the birth of a child is not known as Mrutika Shutak.

Swadhyayee, Yes that is not a bad suggestion. I will see about changing it. Thanks! HeBhagawan 03:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How about just leaving the mrita- and vruddhi- prefixes off for the sake of brevity and just saying it this way?

These periods are known as sūtak or ashaucha, and are explained as resulting from a temporary state of ritual impurity.

HeBhagawan 03:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The brevity of one or two words is not going to give advantage but is shall be at the cost of clarity. Vruddhi means addition. My feeling is it is not due to Ashauch that family members where a child is born keep away from Darshans or Puja, it is very happy state of mind being an hurdle in concentration of mind in Darshan or Puja. The mind is in state of over joyous condition. Hinduism has lot of logical basis for it's doctrines and rituals - not known to people of other religions leading them to criticise or laugh at it. When Hinduism is tried to explain over platforms like Wikipedia, it is desirable that the logics of Hinduism doctrines and rituals be placed for not only people of other religions but also Hindu new generation to make them have due reverence for their own religion of birth. Hope you will be open to accept things not known to you or beyond your reading material and agree to add Vruddhi & Mrutika. Swadhyayee 05:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just trying to avoid an over-proliferation of technical terminology. Some is necessary, of course, but we dont' want to bury the article in it. What do others think? Also, I don't think that the purpose of a wikipedia article on a religion is to make people have reverence for the religion, as you suggested above. There are other websites for that purpose. The purpose of a wikipedia article is to provide information from a detached, NPOV, scholarly approach. HeBhagawan 12:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Karma section

Raj, HeBhgavan and others: The introductionary paragraph to this section was becoming much too long with the addition of different perspectives on how God is involved in the law of karma. It needs its own paragraph, which I created, because 1. it's a subject unto itself, and 2. I (and probably others) intend to add one or two more perspectives, to show that there are other views in Hinduism on this. I believe this entire paragraph should be moved to the Karma article because it's much too long and detailed for this general article on Hinduism. I think a general article on Hinduism should have one sentence here saying something like "Some Hindus see God's direct involvement with the law of karma, while others consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma", and then have a more detailed discussion at Karma of how God is involved. But it seems everyone wants their say here, and if that's what other editors believe, then it should stay. But it now warrants its own paragraph, after the introduction, I believe.

So, I've:

• 1. Created a separate paragraph and moved it just after the introduction. Some might think it should be lower in the article yet - I'm open to that.
• 2. Edited it. It was repetitive ('mitigating karma' was mentioned twice) and ungrammatical.
• 3. Moved Raj's reference to the proper place.
• 4. Added HeBhagavan's references.
• 5. Added another way that God can work with the law of Karma. I can think of yet other views that might be added here, adding to my belief that this paragraph should be moved to the Karma article, with only one brief general sentence in this overly long article.

Please, let's discuss all changes we make, and with civility. ॐ Priyanath 15:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Priyanath, Thanks for your hard work. The paragraph as it currently is (ie the way you made it) provides a good explanation of the various theological approaches. However, I vote to move the entire paragraph to the karma article. We can still keep one sentence with wording similar to what you suggested above ("Some Hindus see God's direct involvement in this process, while others consider the natural laws of causation sufficient ot explain the effects of karma." Otherwise it is too much detail for the Hinduism article, which is already quite long. Let's keep it simple.

By the way, everybody, the paragraph Priyanath added is as follows:

Throughout this process, many see God as playing some kind of role, for example, as the dispenser of the fruits of karma. Other Hindus consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma. The Bhagavad Gita suggests an intermediate view, that karma is a law of cause and effect yet God can mitigate karma for His devotees. Another view holds that a Sadguru, acting on God's behalf, can mitigate or work out some of the karma of the disciple.

Both Priyanath and I think that the various views presented in the paragraph are legitimate ones, but that the main Hinduism article does not nned to provide so much detail on this particular matter. Raj, on the other hand, believes that it is essential to mention these ideas in somewhat more detail. Everybody is making reasonable arguments, and the disagreement at this point is over style rather than doctrine. To see various arguments for both sides, read the discussion on Priyanath's personal discussion page. But we are all willing to abide by whatever consensus the community agrees on.HeBhagawan 20:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagavan, I also vote that the (growing) paragraph be moved to Karma and/or Karma in Hinduism and the simple one sentence explanation remain here. But if a consensus thinks that the paragraph should stay, then it should. What do others think? ॐ Priyanath 20:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of having a very brief mention of karma in Hinduism with it expanded under the Karma article. Chris 21:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the current paragraph. I think it is fine and would satisfy all of us.

Raj2004 22:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone, There is a lot of information contained in the paragraph we are discussing. The information itself is good, well-sourced, and presents many sides of an issue. I noticed that Raj recently added even more information, and others wish to add still more. It has the right amount of detail for an article dedicated to discussing karma. But it has way too much information for this article, whose purpose is to just give an overview of Hinduism. The Vedas have a lot of information in them, but there is a reason most people prefer to read the Gita--it's more concise. It SUMMARIZES the key points of the Vedas. Similarly, this article should SUMMARIZE the key points of Hinduism, not attempt to explain every detail and nuance. Let's keep the paragraph, but move it to the karma page. Priyanath, Chris, and myself are in favor of this approach. Raj is not. Can we get a couple more comments from other people? Thanks! HeBhagawan 23:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

well, He Bhagwan how about this: The concepts of karma held by Hindus include many who believe in karma being the law of cause and effect while others suggest that God is a dispenser of the fruits of one's karma. An intermediate point of view suggests that although karma may generally operate as a law of cause and effect, God may mitigate one's bad karma for His devotees.

Raj2004 00:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to keep specific ways that God works through the law of karma, we need to keep the entire paragraph (which is only going to get bigger over time), including the Sadguru sentence. Trimming the sentence isn't fair to other equally valid ways that God works with karma. Or we move the paragraph to the Karma article and cover all ways with this sentence "Some Hindus see God's direct involvement with the law of karma, while others consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma". I believe those are the two best choices. So far three people (myself, HeBhagavan, Cott12) want to move the entire paragraph and replace with the one sentence. One (Raj) wants to keep it, or keep tweaking it. What do others think? ॐ Priyanath 00:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Priyanth, I agree if you just change to this: Many Hindus see God's direct involvement with the law of karma, while others consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma.

That would be fine with me, as you correctly point out that the previous sentence would cut out other valid ways.

Raj2004 00:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree to

Many Hindus see God's direct involvement with the law of karma, while others consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma.

Of course, saying "many" is ever so slightly POV (which I think is why Raj wants to change it). But it is not too blatant, and I want to quit arguing over it.

And let's move the paragraph we've worked on so hard to the karma page, where it can get the attention it deserves. Good job, you guys! HeBhagawan 00:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it works just great - good suggestion Raj. Can you do the moving, HeBhagavan? Thanks, everyone. ॐ Priyanath 00:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I can move it, although I may not get to it today--I'll be away from my computer shortly. I can probably do it after I go home tonight.HeBhagawan 01:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally everyone agrees!! wooh! I was wondering if we ever were going to get to a consensus. I don't think many is a point of view. some can mean a point of view as it can mean an insigificant amount or infinity.

Thanks for your patience.

Raj2004 01:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job everyone. I suggest that we also add:

Main article: Karma

to the topic header so people will be encouraged to go to the main article for further elucidation. Chris 01:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if it were a minority view (which it isn't), there are so many Hindus that it's surely 'many'! I'll go ahead and move it. We didn't decide on where the one sentence goes, but I'll take a stab at it - putting it where it was originally, back in the first paragraph. That part can be discussed more later. I'll add the main|Karma on the header. I'm away from the computer for most of tomorrow. ॐ Priyanath 01:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

One last note - I chose a new placement for the sentence where I thought it made some sense, given the rest of the paragraph. The only other place that made sense to me is to put it as the last sentence in the paragraph. In some ways that might be better, because it would actually make the sentence more prominent - since the introductory paragraph would conclude with that sentence. I'm happy either way. ॐ Priyanath 03:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Priya, I think it's fine where you put it. Good job. I don't want to start a new controversy or anything, but does anybody have any objection to saying

Many Hindus see God's direct involvement in this process, while others consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma

The only reason I suggest this is that it sounds a tiny bit awkward to end both clauses in the sentence with the word "karma." It's just a stylistic suggestion, but if you object, we can leave it as it is. It especially sounds better to say "in this process" when you read it together with the preceding sentences. Maybe we can do some work on the karma page now.HeBhagawan 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me, it does read better, and makes the same statement. ॐ Priyanath 03:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

seems fine by me.

Raj2004 09:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Reads better that way. Chris 12:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read just the edits of discussion about direct involvement of God in Law of Karma. I feel, what could be the scholarly view? One may possess the belief that there is direct involvement of God in Law of Karma but logically I am not convinced. To me, Law of Karma is a science. May I have the permission to discuss this? Supposing a vending machine is created where if one press button for "x" one get "x" and if one press button of "y" one get "y". Could the creator of vending machine interfere and make it to deliver "y" by pressing button for "x"? I don't think, it could so happen so I am inclined to opine that there can not be direct involvement of God in Law of Karma which is set by universal necessity.

Regarding, God's or Guru's ability to free the deciple from fruits of Karma, I feel it should be thought this way. If The God or The Guru throw light of Jnan (through explanations) in the intellect of The Deciple, The Deciple is bound to get free from the fruits of Karma as he is bound to be free from the fruit producing belief that I am Karta. Not because of grace of God or Guru but because of enlightenment in one's intellect which shatter false beliefs viz. Ajnan. It is said that the fire of Jnan can burn all fruits of Karma even in the end of one's life. Once, a person attain the stage of Knowledgable or Sage, the person frees himself from fruits of past Karmas.

I do not know who believe that there is direct involvement of God in Law of Karma. I have hardly heard so. Those who may not have philosophical study may believe so or those sages who said so, just did not project the philosophy (of Jnanoday viz. Uday of Jnan) to common men.

I think, the very concept of belief of direct involvement of God in Law of Karma has no basis or is not understood in right context. Swadhyayee 16:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work but I think we should move the paragraph to the Karma in Hinduism article. The article is (growing) rapidly and we should slow down and make sure the community agrees on the right choice.-- Seadog  16:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, guys. The editors who disageed with each other managed to come to a compromise on this issue that all are happy with, so there is no longer any disagreement about this issue. HeBhagawan 18:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan, I only just had a chance to read this discussion, and thank you for your work here. Saiva suj 21:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks also, very mature and even handed. Addhoc 22:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, guys. Raj and Priyanath equally deserve commendations too for their cooperative work ethics and high quality standards. HeBhagawan 23:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hebhagwan, thanks for the kind words!

Raj2004 00:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For anybody who may be interested, this website [[3]] has an interesting approach to explaining different types of karma giving various analogies and even pictures related to archery. HeBhagawan 03:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed your edit of Hinduism.

31/10/2006.

Dear Freedom Skies,

Pl. bear with me for removing your edit of Hinduism. The sense or significance of your edit is un-understandable. Dharma means religion. Dharmic means religious. What is founding religion of Dharmic religions?

Swadhyayee 04:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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

We develop and developed in us.

HeBhagawan,,

I have edited we develop good tendencies or bad tendencies to good or bad tendencies are developed in us as it is more proper. When we say, "we develop" means we do a particular act to do so but when something develop in us due to some natural reaction, it is proper to write so and so developed in us. Hope you will agree and won't revert the edit.

Swadhyayee 06:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but I think that readers will readily understand the meaning you want to convey without the necessity of rewording it. It is implicit. As a general rule of English writing style, it is preferable to use the active voice.HeBhagawan 02:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan, You need to be open and apply mind. The meaning change. Pl. don't take a grammar rule for active and passive voice which is not applicable here. You need to apply your mind for 10 minutes. Should I hope you will ever be open and exhibit aptitude for learning? Swadhyayee 02:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, Please read the Wikipedia Manual of Style at WP:MOS, especially Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_first-person_pronouns_and_one. There are some very experienced editors here for those who are humble enough to accept advice. ॐ Priyanath 02:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Avoid first-person pronouns and one Wikipedia articles must not be based on one person’s opinions or experiences. Thus, “I” can never be used except, of course, when it appears in a quotation. For similar reasons, avoid the use of “we” and “one”. A sentence such as “We [or One] should note that some critics have argued in favor of the proposal” sounds more personal than encyclopedic.

Nevertheless, it is sometimes appropriate to use “we” or “one” when referring to an experience that anyone, any reader, would be expected to have, such as general perceptual experiences. For example, although it might be best to write, “When most people open their eyes, they see something”, it is still legitimate to write, “When we open our eyes, we see something”, and it is certainly better than using the passive voice: “When the eyes are opened, something is seen.”

In the above example, meaning do not change whereas meaning change when it is said that "we develop good tendencies" and "good tendencies are developed in us". When we consciously involve solely in actions to develop good tendencies, we can say, "we develop good tendencies" but when development of good tendencies are results of our certain actions carried out for other intentions, we have to say, "good tendencies are developed in us". While we cultivate, grass grows along due to watering. We say, "grass grows" and not "we grow grass". Similarly when we help someone, relations develop amongst us. We don't say, "we develop relations"; we say "relations developed amongst us as we helped each other". When we say, "we develop relations" it means that our help was aimed at developing relations.

Swadhyayee 07:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, please discuss changes before making them

Swadhyayee, Considering the many past controversies over your edits, would you please be so kind as to discuss them here before incorporating them into the article? As of yesterday, the Hinduism article was of high quality. In my opinion, any changes we make at this point should be carefully considered and discussed with the community so that we don't ruin the good work that many editors have done. I would not say this regarding an article that was in shambles already, but an article of this quality deserves extra care. Thank you. Remember especially that the article is already quite long, which is why the editors in the Hinduism project are now adding additional details to other pages within the project rather than expanding this page. HeBhagawan 12:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ashauch - Priyanath.

You may be right in the available meanings of "Ashauch" but the logic behind is gloomy or joyous mood of people. How can anyone go to The God for Darshan with gloomy face? Would anyone like gloomy face but the fact is, today everyone's face is gloomy because of one or other problem. One may say that everyone is Shutaki every day. Hope you are aware that there is always two meanings 1) translation of word and 2) "Lakshik Arth" - "Lakshik" meaning. I think the logic behind Hinduism doctrines if projected would earn due reverence for Hinduism and mitigate allegations that Hinduism is superstitious. Can't help till the people do not want to apply mind to understand some concepts strange to them. Enough of dis-advantage is being taken of citation rule.Swadhyayee 04:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Priyanath"

But 'inability to concentrate' is your own individual interpretation of that word. It is not popularly accepted, and is therefore not "Lakshik" either, unless you mean your very own personal "Lakshik". I appreciate your desire to change the literal and popular meaning of words to something more positive. It's a beautiful idea. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means that it must define words and principles based on the popularly accepted usages of those words. Citations and references are a part of that, just as they are with any encyclopedia. A personal website or message board is the more appropriate place to promote new and more personal meanings of words. Wikipedia really isn't the place for that, unfortunately, Swadhyayee. ॐ Priyanath 04:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with priyanath. On a personal level, I actually like the "inability to concentrate" explanation. If this were not an encyclopedia, I would probably prefer that explanation to "ritual impurity." However, the conventional explanation is ritual impurity. If anybody can find some reliable citations to support the "inability to concentrate" explanation, I would be happy to incorporate it into the article, but otherwise we have to use the conventional explanation.

Also, as I mentioned in another discussion, the purpose of a wikipedia article on a religion is not to make people have reverence for the religion, as Swadhyayee suggested above. There are other websites for that purpose. The purpose of a wikipedia article is to provide information from a detached, NPOV, scholarly approach. I am fully in favor of promoting reverence for Hinduism, but this is not the appropriate forum for doing that.HeBhagawan 13:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Kama & Artha are lower Purusharths is a wrong statement.

One could say for deploring Kama & Artha as lower Purusharths. It could have been said, just to make people move to Dharma & Moksha. Lot of Sanyasees try to deplore Kama & Artha, particularly Jain Sadhus try to create hate in the minds of people living family life.

Does one not need money to do one's religious duties or support Sanyasees or Brahmins or religious institutions? Krishna has said in Srimad Bhagawad Geeta that "Kama" is my "Vibhuti." In Hindu doctrines "Kama" is supported confining sexual pleasure with one's wedded spouse in the witness of fire (A form of God), Brahmin and society. Is it possible to conquer "Kama" by any average person? Vishwamitra also sliped. When Krishna declared "Kama" as Krishna's "Vibhuti" who are we to deplore "Kama"? Indian has n' number of Sanyasees. With due respect to Swami Bhaskaranandji, I say that anything said in a particular situation or a context should not be incorporated in an article like Wikipedia which shall remain on a public forum for a long long future. Hope everyone will see the damage being done to Hindusim and restrain from continuing with statements deploring 4 pursuits of life. Swadhyayee 14:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, I think the final part of that paragraph should address your concerns. It says:

even kama and artha are considered legitimate pursuits, so long as they are performed responsibly, as intermediate stages on the path to the realization of God. Thus it is said that artha and kama are to be pursued like a river which is bounded by dharma and moksha on the two sides.

Thus kama and artha are not deplored. The article also calls them "legitimate pursuits of life." It is hard to interpret that as deploring them. HeBhagawan 14:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The initial statements need to be removed. Everything said by every Sanyansee - seemingly un-convincing should not have a place in this article. One can't project a wrong thing and try to justify with some partially contradicting lines in the end.Swadhyayee 15:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding the initial statements. The initial statements do not say that kama and artha are wrong; they only say that dharma and moksha are higher goals. The final part clarifies that kama and artha, though lower pursuits, are generally a necessary part of life. I don't see any contradiction. What do others think? HeBhagawan 15:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

An analogy: If I say that a Bachellors degree is lower than a PhD, I am not deploring a Bachellors degree. It is a legitimate and necessary stage on the way to the PhD. Similarly, kama and artha are legitimate and necessary stages on the path that ultimately leads to moksha.HeBhagawan 15:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The opening sentence calls them "four legitimate pursuits" That phrase is repeated at the end. I don't see anything 'deploring' them at all. I wouldn't remove anything, but the second to last sentence might be just slightly edited, to say something like 'all four pursuits are seen as routes to God', or something like that. Artha, for example, when done as karma yoga, can be liberating. This article is too long to get into such specifics, but that second to last sentence could express the idea more positively - i.e., 'as a path to liberation when done rightly', rather than merely as 'intermediate stages' on the path to God. But I don't have any references! ॐ Priyanath 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in changing it to something like that. The final sentences are not mine, and are unreferenced anyway. If you can think of a way to slightly improve the wording of that part, I have no objection. How about this:

even kama and artha are considered legitimate pursuits on the path to liberation, so long as they are performed responsibly.

HeBhagawan 16:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan,

Among these, kama is considered the lowest because this urge is common to both man and animals, and because it is rooted in selfishness.[111] Artha is higher because it is mainly observed in humans, and can be performed for unselfish reasons. Dharma is higher than kama and artha because it is inherently based on unselfishness, and moksha is the highest because God-realization is the ultimate goal of life, whose attainment results in lasting happiness and perfect unselfishness. Moksha is also known as Mukti, Samādhi (union with God), Nirvāṇa, or escape from Samsāra (the cycle of births and deaths).[112] However, even kama and artha are considered legitimate pursuits, so long as they are performed responsibly, as intermediate stages on the path to the realization of God. Thus it is said that artha and kama are to be pursued like a river which is bounded by dharma and moksha on the two sides.

What is the harm in removing the lines which damage the purpose of making world at large understand Hinduism? I fail to understand why you take so much of pain to retain controversial matters? Why you ignore, Kama is declared as Krishna's Vibhuti in Geeta? Each four Purusharths are supplementary to each other. The comparison itself is deploring. This creates a damaging impression about Hinduism and I simply can't bear it. I think, if you and Priyanath disagree to remove these damaging statements, you are doing injustice to the greatest cause of Hinduism. Pl. agree to remove the entire para and think of re-wording it in positive tone of each one being supplementary to each other.Swadhyayee 16:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea for rewording it that might satisfy you and also make the paragraph more concise. But give me some time as I am pretty busy right now. Thanks.HeBhagawan 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee and Priya, Of course kāma and artha can be good according to the scriptures, but dharma and moksha are always good. The generally accepted view is that kāma and artha are something that one has to follow with a view toward dharma and moksha--it is not good to pursue kama and artha alone. On the other hand, it is considered a very meritorious thing if a person is able to go beyond kāma and artha and dedicate their life to dharma and moksha alone. This is why Hindus respect sanyasīs so much.

Kama and artha are legitimate pursuits, but they are like knives: they can help you or hurt you. Dharma and moksha always help. I am not trying to advance my own viewpoint: I think that this is clearly the predominant theme in most scriptures. So I don't agree with you assertion that all the purusharthas are considered to be on the same level, although all are legitimate goals if followed properly.

Since you cited the Gītā, I will cite it too: In most instances where kāma is mentioned by Sri Krishna, it is referred to as something that one must overcome. In the Gītā, kāma is described as part of a chain reaction that ultimately leads to own's destruction. Lord Krishna says that kāma leads to all of the following: are krodha (anger), delusion (sammoha), loss of memory (smriti-vibhrama), destruction of the intellect (buddhi-nāsha), and ultimately to a person's destruction (pranashyati). Here is a website with a survey of several ideas found in Hinduism regarding kāma [[4]].

As the article currently reflects, artha is considered higher than kāma in the Hindu scriptures, and thus there are not as many warnings against it (although there are some, even in the Gita), but neither is there much praise of it.

In contrast, the scriptures constantly praise dharma and moksha. If you really need citations for this, they are plentiful, but I would guess that you are already aware of it.

HOWEVER, I am not completely opposed to changing the paragraph in question slightly for purposes of brevity.

How about this to replace the whole paragraph:

Among these, dharma and moksha are seen as higher pursuits than kāma and moksha becasue they are inherently unselfish. However, even kama and artha are considered legitimate pursuits on the path to moksha, so long as they are performed responsibly. Thus it is said that artha and kama are to be pursued like a river which is bounded by dharma and moksha on the two sides.

Of course, we should retain the citation for the first sentence. If anybody can find a citation for the second and third sentences, it would be good, but unless somebody objects, there is no need to have it right away. What do you all think? HeBhagawan 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

On further reflection, and research, I think the article is fine as it is. Perhaps some minor editing would be appropriate. Kama is lower, when you look at kama as desire for sensual pleasure. Artha is also lower than the other two, when it's seen as mere acquisition of material possesions. Swadhyayee's objection seems to be about sannyasi's who put down the householder who is fulfilling his duties. But that's not what Artha means, nor is that what this section is about. Artha is acquisition with no mention of service or karma yoga. If anything, this section is too lenient with kama and artha as wonderful things to do. But for balance and peace, I think it should stand as is, or with minor editing. ॐ Priyanath 22:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Priyanath, I am happy to leave the paragraph as it is, or to use the wording I suggested above. Or if you have an alternate wording to suggest, just say what it is.

One side note: I would like to commend you for your sophisticated thinking, especially your distinction between artha as simple acquisition of material possessions and as being something one can pursue as karma yoga. I think that the final sentence of our paragraph is in accord with your view, becasue if artha is pursued as karmayoga, the way you suggest, then it could be said to have dharma and moksha on both sides. If artha is pursued as karmayoga, it actually becomes elevated to the level of dharma and becomes sort of a sub-category of dharma--that is to say, it becomes an integral part of rightous living ("dharma"). The same could be said for kāma, although perhaps to a slightly lesser degree.

However, if not pursued in this way, then artha and kāma are definately lower pursuits. If they are pursued without dharma on one side, and without having a view towards ultimate moksha on the other, it is hard to come up with any justification in the scriptures for pursuing them. (The only justification I can think of is the idea that most people must go through a certain amount of selfish material enjoyment before they will realize that it can never bring lasting happiness, and will thus turn towards God). Of course, I'm not suggesting that we include all these ideas in teh article; im just mentioning them becasue i think they are interesting.HeBhagawan 23:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I think the article is good as it stands. The longer discussion would be helpful, but only in its own separate article, I think. ॐ Priyanath 23:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, I should also commend you for your ideas regarding the reasons behind sutak (concentration). Although your view on that point is not the conventional view, perhaps it should be.HeBhagawan 23:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Among these, dharma and moksha are seen as higher pursuits than kāma and moksha becasue they are inherently unselfish. However, even kama and artha are considered legitimate pursuits on the path to moksha, so long as they are performed responsibly. Thus it is said that artha and kama are to be pursued like a river which is bounded by dharma and moksha on the two sides.

This seems to be better worded preventing damage to the connotations of Hinduism. "Kama" has inherent place in life as channel of procreation is essential. "Kama" means desire for sensual pleasure of five Jnanedriyas. The existence of sensual objects and sensual desires support life on this planet. If, one does not have desire to eat or drink, the life could come to an end. There are three degrees of "Kama". Wish, desire and lust. Wish is slightest form of desire and so wish is desirable without which even one may not have desire to acquire "Moksha". There must be a wish to acquire "Moksha". Wish is a form of mind to have something, if, one gets it well otherwise no regrets. Desire is bit stronger, one need to have a particular thing. Lust is worst. It would lead to sinful acts. One wants a thing by hook or crook is the lustful state of mind. What is deprecated is lustful state of mind which not only ruin a soul but also take away peace and harmony of all living beings. War is a product of lustful minds. My personal request to you to be, try to live as Hinduism preach and we support the preaching. "Karmanyeva Dhikarasya Ma Fale Shu Kadachin". If we lift our focus from FAC, we can do justice to Hinduism and the article. Remember, knowledgable people from other religions and our young generation (including our present generation) will have Wikipedia Hinduism article - a well to satisfy their thirst for Hinduism philosophy. FAC and what not will follow and even if FAC is not granted and the article helps to change one life, it would be much more worthwhile. Any mis-leading statement of whomsoever wrongfully lowering the image of Hinduism should not be incorporated. Even a Sanyasee could be wrong or may have said a thing in a particular situation. The preaching depends upon type of audience. One may have to instill fear in a brainless to prevent him from sinful acts. This preaching instilling fear can not be philosophy. Regarding wealth acquiring, exemplary example is King Janak. Jay Shri Krishna. Swadhyayee 02:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, Swadhyayee, you make some nice distinctions between different types of kāma. Thank you for sharing your ideas, and thank you for working in a cooperative manner. Priyanath, although I have frequently disagreed with Swadhyayee on other issues, I think that I'm going to take his side this time. I am doing so for reasons of brevity more than for reasons of content. I remain open to any more suggestions you or others might have, and I'll change my opinion if somebody convinces me, but for now, anyway, I'll change it to what Swadhyayee approved of.HeBhagawan 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Great job - I'm all for brevity, and it reads very very well. Great editing. ॐ Priyanath 02:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It would still be better if the wordings give meaning that all Purusharths are supplementary to each other. I shall be happy if you hold equal weight for providing right connotations with that to brevity. Swadhyayee 02:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for working together to come to an agreement.HeBhagawan 04:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Swadhyayee 07:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, please discuss changes before editing

Swadhyayee, other editors are willing to work with you if you are willing to work with them. Because the article is in pretty good condition overall, and we are trying to get featured article status, we have been encouraging all editors to discuss changes on this page before making them. Please join the discussion. Thank you. HeBhagawan 12:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan,

Forget about FAC. Objections are mounting against this article. You try to appreciate better views. Discussion would be fine but not necessary for each and every edit. I have echoed more than once use of sock-puppetry during discussion. What is the point of such discussion. The fact remains that you remove each and every edit, howsoever your wordings may be insufficient to give meaning. Hope you be more open minded to accept other incorporations.

Swadhyayee 13:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Brahman

Apologies for the length of this comment but I wanted to provide full quotations to back up the argument.

At present I feel that this section (Brahman) does not cover all the major views within Hinduism. For example to quote from the first para -

According to the monotheistic and pantheistic theologies of Hinduism, God is, in the highest sense, One: formless, infinite, and eternal

The vast majority of Vaishnava schools would disagree with the above statement - Infinite and eternal yes, but formless no. For example see:

• "Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme."

" B-Gita (As-it-Is) 7.24

• "The same substance is realized as impersonal Brahman by the students of the Upanishads, as localized Paramatma by the Hiranyagarbhas or the yogis, and as Bhagavan by the devotees. In other words, Bhagavan, or the Personality of Godhead, is the last word of the Absolute Truth. Paramatma is the partial representation of the Personality of Godhead, and impersonal Brahman is the glowing effulgence of the Personality of Godhead, as the sun rays are to the sun-god. Less intelligent students of either of the above schools sometimes argue in favor of their own respective realization, but those who are perfect seers of the Absolute Truth know well that the above three features of the one Absolute Truth are different perspective views seen from different angles of vision." Purport from Bhag-P 1.2.11

• "Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all." Brahma-Samhita 5.1

Although I have quoted from 'Gaudiya Vaishnava translations' the philosophy stands true for other forms of Vaishnavism also:

• "We uphold plurality as the three entities -- the individual selves, the world and the supreme Lord -- are mutually distinct in their substantive nature and attributes and there is no mutual transposition of their characteristics " Sri Vaishnava website

With this in mind does anyone object to an attempt to include this viewpoint also in the section? (Obviously without removing any others) Many bhakti schools do not follow the philosophy that:

In reality, God does not have any such attributes, according to Hinduism. It is not considered harmful to project such attributes on God; on the contrary, it is considered helpful because the myriad names and forms of God one finds in Hinduism are all ways for humans to approach the divine

They actually follow a philosophy wherein God Does have a form, albeit a different type of form from that of the material energy (prakrti). 'Nirguna' from this perspective would simply mean 'without mundane/material form' but not without any attributes alltogether:

• "Spiritually there are no differences between these five tattvas, for on the transcendental platform everything is absolute. Yet there are also varieties in the spiritual world, and in order to taste these spiritual varieties one should distinguish between them." CC Adi-lila 7.5

Please let me know if anyone has any objections or input. Regards, ys GourangaUK 12:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Gouranga,

Could you pl. split subject wise, summarise and simplify what you want to say. I am sorry but I could not understand. Nirguna, I don't think mean only without mundane or material form but God has a form. God is formless and can take form as and when universal necessity arise is my understanding. Regarding the term "Bhagawan" Bhagawan is different from "God" or "Parmatma". This is in back of my mind. I think, in Chhandogya Upanishad the meaning of Bhagawan is explained.

I feel different group of Hindus may have different beliefs but I feel the central idea without disputes should take place in this article. There will be no end if contradictory beliefs are projected to confuse the viewers. We may say that Shaivaites believe so and Vaishanavaits believe so in important beliefs but not each and every petty different. I think even Vaishanvaites accept Nirgun Brahma. We can't rely on very rigid believers. It has to be scholarly belief.Swadhyayee 13:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Gouranga, I agree that the article should recognize all views as you say. As Swadhyayee notes, the article would reach an unacceptable length if we tried to enumerate every difference between sects. Therefore, my view is that the article should focus primarily on the things that most Hindus agree on. The other pages in the Hinduism project can focus on the differences between sects. The Hinduism article should indeed point out some prominent differences between schools of thought, but it will get too confusing for readers if it does this too much. In my view, any disagreements among sects, if they are mentioned at all, should take up no more than about 2 sentences in the main article. If possible they should be avoided.

The other thing I think should be avoided is absolute statements about what any one sect believes. There is a lot of diversity of thought even within each sect and subsect. So statements like "Shaivas believe x" or "Vaishnavas believe x" should be avoided. When necessary, however, it may be ok to say "Shaivas tend to believe x" or "Many Shaivas believe x." But of course then you open the door for all the other Shaivas who believe a, b, c, d and so on to demand that their views be included too. So it is better to say "some Hindus believe x, while others believe y," and to leave the labels out of it as much as possible.

I think that there is a lot more agreement among sects than differences, so the main article should focus on the similarities, and the other articles in the Hinduism project should highlight the differences. The article does describe the beliefs of Vaishnavas and Dualistic schools in many places. Moreover, Vaishnava pictures are actually more represented than others, and the article gives a lot of attention to Krishna and the Gita. So I don't think that Vaishnavism is being ignored in the article at all. But if you have any suggestions for how to reword something, or specific things to change, I am always willing to discuss it. HeBhagawan 13:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Gouranga,

I agree with HeBhagawan yet I tell you I am still confused what you tried to say. If you are in position to simplify and catagorise different things seperately, I will support your proposals if convinced or state the reasons for dis-agreement.Swadhyayee 14:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

---

According to the monotheistic and pantheistic theologies of Hinduism, God is formless, infinite, and eternal. God is not subject to change, decay and destruction. God is the very source of consciousness. God is beyond time, space, perception, causation and yet permeates everything and every being. Being formless, God is beyond gender.[8] When God is thought of as this infinite principle, God is called Brahman. Brahman is the Absolute reality: it is pure existence and knowledge. Brahman does not exist; it is existence itself. It is not all-knowing; it is knowledge itself.

Could we consider to change the above lines as follows if it retains the meaning of original contributor?

"The monotheistic and pantheistic theologies of Hinduism define formless, infinite and eternal God as Brahman. Brahman is not subject of birth, decay and destruction, is genderless, beyond time, space, perception, causation and yet pemeates everything and every being." Swadhyayee 14:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, you have made some changes without first discussing them here. You successfully got agreement on the changes you wanted yesterday through discussion. Please follow the same process for the ones you want to make today. Also, when you make many changes at one time, it is hard to discuss them, so please mention each one individually on this page. Thank you. Gouranga, I think that the concept of Brahman is pervasive throughout all the scriptures, although there are definately a variety of philosophies about how best to explain Brahman's relation to the atman. But this article should gives a general overview of the way the major scriptures, such as the Gita and the Upanishads describe Brahman, without getting into anything that is controversial for most people. What do you think?HeBhagawan 15:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan Pl. explain me why discussion is required when edits don't change the meaning but just refine the wordings, when edits incorporate additional matters not striked to you or other editors but are of general knowledge to average Hindus. Is it essential that your wordings only has to remain? Whenever, I have pointed out Wikipedia policy going against you, you have conveniently ignored it and for others you have importance of Wikipedia policy interpreted in your way. This is frustating. Pl. Pl. be open minded for additional matters and change of your wordings. Swadhyayee 15:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear HeBhagawan & Swadhyayee - Thank you for your comments. I do not want to make the article more complicated, or get into explaining the minute details of Vaishnava philosophy, but to phrase it more simply - the current article says:

According to the monotheistic and pantheistic theologies of Hinduism, God is, in the highest sense, One: formless, infinite, and eternal

Now this statement is false because all the major Vaishnava, and possibly some Shaivite? theologies believe that God is not formless, based on descriptions in a number of texts such as the Bhagavata Purana. Often the word 'nirguna' is quoted from scripture as evidence that God has no form, (which is why I mentioned it as an example) but to the above theologies 'nirguna' simply means 'no material form' which is somewhat different. I'm not talking about a major re-write just some adjustment in wording, otherwise what we are saying isn't correct. I will make some changes in the article (amongst the reverts) so it's easy to see the proposed changes. Regards, ys, GourangaUK 16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Gouranga, Thank you for the even-handed NPOV manner of your edits. At first I was afraid that you wanted to make POV edits, but I see now that you carefully worded what you said to make it as universal as possible while also taking into account alternative views in a sophisticated, non-bigoted way. Good job. HeBhagawan 17:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made some edits to the Brahman section that I feel are grammatical, rather than contextual. But since they can overlap, I'm explaining them here. They were done only for the purpose of clarity and brevity.

• 1. Changed "God is beyond mundane notions of gender." to the simpler "God is beyond gender." It would be even more clear and shorter to include 'gender' in the previous sentence, where 'God is beyond time, space, and causation', but 'gender' didn't seem to be in the same class as 'time' and 'space'. But it could go there if people feel it would fit. But the 'mundane notions of' isn't accurate, because we're talking about God, not people and their mundane notions.
• 2. Removed 'However it is still not considered harmful' to project such attributes on God, since it's directly followed by 'on the contrary, it is considered helpful'. I don't think there's a need to 'think out loud' here by going back and forth. Let's keep it simple and say 'many consider it helpful...' without the long introduction.

ॐ Priyanath 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your changes, Priya. Thanks for your efforts in the delicate task of creating an article that is clearly written and which everybody can agree with as much as possible HeBhagawan 18:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help, I agree with the improvements in wording and grammar - much appreciated. Ys, GourangaUK 15:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee,

Since you asked for an explanation, I will try to give you one. Some of your edits have been 100% good. I have not changed such edits. But there are 2 kinds of edits I have noticed you making repeatedly which are problematic:

1. Unsourced statements that are not common knowledge (even though you usually seem to think they are), and which seem POV.
2. Edits that are ungrammatical and / or clearly poor stylistically. Most often, these are objectionable because they are ungrammatical. A little bit of bad grammar would not be a problem, but you make rather a lot of edits, and rather a lot of them have this problem. You also have made many edits that do not follow the wikipedia rules of style, and are worded awkwardly and are often placed in inappropriate places in the article. When I am talking about stylistic problems, I'm not talking about minor issues that reasonable people could disagree over; I'm talking about things that almost everybody agrees are problems. Even the editors who do nothing but revert vandalism have reverted your edits for this reason.

This is nothing I haven't said before. You asked why I ignore some of your questions. The reason is that you keep asking the same questions again and again. I can't reply every time. Also, on many occasions, I can't understand what what you are trying to say or ask.

I am aware that you may not like to hear these things, and I hope your feelings will not be hurt. But you did ask. Please try to be a little humble and think about why so many editors--not only myself--have reverted so many of your edits. Why should they revert yours and not others if they were not problematic? Instead of looking at other editors, consider whether there is something you could do differently so that there would not be so many disputes. Thank you. Note: There are many copy editors on wikipedia who would probably be willing to help you formulate your paragraphs before inserting them into articles. Or you can always ask the editors here for suggestions. You have some good ideas, you just need to polish your wording and get some references before inserting some of them. I have frequently edited in a Word document before posting in the article, and it works very well. HeBhagawan 17:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan,

Even the editors who do nothing but revert vandalism have reverted your edits for this reason.

It's ugly to continue this discussion. Can you show me this edits by other editors?

The reason is that you keep asking the same questions again and again. I can't reply every time.I can't reply every time. Also, on many occasions, I can't understand what what you are trying to say or ask.

Can you show me my repeated questions? Better you try to understand, I think you need to focus to understand.

I am aware that you may not like to hear these things, and I hope your feelings will not be hurt. But you did ask. Please try to be a little humble and think about why so many editors--not only myself--have reverted so many of your edits. Why should they revert yours and not others if they were not problematic?

Isn't it a personal attack? Do you mean to say I asked for this? Can you show me your claim of other editors have edited my edits? Can anyone other than you say that my English is not understandable. Did you say what Tony remarked for your refined language? Did you see Priyanath stating that your earlier wordings were awkward?.

There are number of things that can be changed without personal attacks. Pl. read Wikipedia policies and see what is applicable to you and not to others.

Those who want to contribute to a religious or spiritual article has to be careful, truthful and free from vainglory.

Hope that a situation don't come when I would have to request you to stop communicating with me.Swadhyayee 03:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, Please just make an effort to be nice, work in a cooperative manner, try to maintain Wikipedia quality standards, and I will do the same. Thanks. 'Nuff said. HeBhagawan 04:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you have not been able to substatiate your claims. That's enough.

on and upon.

Priyanath,

As I studied British Grammar, "on" can be used while a physical object is put on another physical object and "upon" should be used while an abstract thing has to be placed upon another thing. Although "on" is widely used in place of upon. I tried to change "on" to "upon" while editing projection upon God. What should be used "upon" or "on"?Swadhyayee 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tony, to whom you referred, is a good source for grammar and style. If you have questions about English style and grammar, he is a good person to ask. I have taken his suggestions on a number of points. I should mention that I don't consider it a weakness to take the advice of others, as you seem to have suggested above. Sometimes the criticism of others can be helpful. One thing to remember is that mechanical rules will not always give the best results when it comes to rhetoric and style. Therefore it can be a good idea to show what you write to somebody whose prose is good (such as Mr. Tony), and carefully consider their suggestions. HeBhagawan 05:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan,

I had directed the question to Priyanath as I think his English is better. I had already referred to Mr.Tony before I placed it here. Swadhyayee 07:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee - Of the edits you recently made, that were all reverted by Sfacets, the 'on' to 'upon' one is the only one in which I think you might be right. But I would defer to people with a better understanding of English than myself. Please see my response on my talk page, User_talk:Priyanath, to your other questions about your issues here. ॐ Priyanath 05:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Priyanath for your views.

Thanks Priyanath for your views.

I changed Brahman as in nearly 7 lines para, the word God appeared six times. In most of the case the sentence beginned with the word "God". Whether you agree or not, it does not project good English. If you try to re-read my edits with bit more positive view, hopefully, you will agree that the same was desirable as the extensive use of word "God" was done away with.

There was no rational for projecting fatherhood or motherhood upon God in the earlier writing. I believe, almost all believe that God provides and take our care so it becomes a matter of general knowledge. This sort of boards appear to have been prepared by Christains are seen on doors here in India. This was added to already existing matter and so I feel it could be understood in proper context by readers. My edits provided logic for projecting fatherhood and motherhood upon God. The moment an animate (human or animal) is born, it's care is taken by it's birth giver. The milk is produced in the breasts just a month or two before the offspring is born. The breasts dry when the offspring either learn to prey or child start getting teeth. Isn't it a proof of "God provides".

Regarding, worshiping God, human is imperfect where as God is projected as perfect. The virtues a human desire to imbibe can not be seen in one's Guru even. Whereas one can find the possibility of imbibing most difficult virtues from The God as God (deity) is seen possessing all virtues.

Well, if, you see I was right in use of "upon", I could also be right in so many other things, it's a matter of present knowledge of subject matter of the viewer and efforts to understand.

If, there is punctuation error, it could be corrected by any one. It's no reason to tell anyone that one's English is poor and damaging the overall meaning of an article. I am not able to understand a great deal of article Hinduism even matter of a para which I edit. I just try to give more understanding by my edits. I do not remove or touch a thing which I do not understand as I feel, I do not have the knowledge of subject matter.

God is not only beyond description but beyond perception too. My such edit is also removed. Isn't it an attempt to stick to individual limited knowledge?

In universe, there are three stages of any existence 1) Birth 2) Decay and 3) Death. "Janma, Jara and Mrutyu" God is an exception. So decay has to have a place with change though the word "change" may be covering "decay" as "decay" is the word used by Shashtras.

One place the article was carrying word "entirely accurate". I changed it to accurate as "accurate" does not need adj. entirely. Was the earlier edit right? Was it not a poor grammar or English? Did I make any comment that it was poor English? Did I ever make such comment?

My feeling is "beyond description" is much better than "can not be described" but yet old edits will stay by reverting my edits.

I am not seeing sense in "God's less abstract personal form". Is improving and brevity not needed there?

I am not seeing sense here too: According to the monotheistic and pantheistic theologies of Hinduism, God is, in the highest sense, One: formless, infinite, and eternal. God is changeless and is the very source of consciousness.

What was wrong in my edit "According to the monotheistic and pantheistic theologies of Hinduism, God is formless, infinite, and eternal. God is not subject to change and decay. God is the very source of consciousness. God is beyond time, space, perception and causation and yet permeates everything and every being."

To me "God is source of consciousness is wrong"; I believe it is more right to say that "consciousness is God". If you project God to be Nirgun and Nirakar, how could God be source of consciousness? The God can be felt as consciousness, fire, water, Jnan and so many other things.

Wikipedia policy clearly says not to discourage new editors as they could be assets to Wikipedia. Who knows who will serve Wikipedia longer? No one has right to make incivil comments. The comments of HeBhagawan while I edited for the first time were grossly incivil followed by Apandey. I have strong feeling that Apandey and HeBhagawan are one. You see, HeBhagawan's recent post to Apandey on Apandey's talk page inviting him, inspite of Apandey having involved in incivility against me which complicates issues. You see HeBhagawan having awarded Apandey for contributing to Hinduism and behaving decently. What is Apandey's contribution to Hinduism? Can you check his incivil comments against me on talk page of "Hinduism"? What could be the impression of HeBhagawan while he is awarding without merits?

All this I wrote to you so that things improve and editors get refined along with article.

With my due apology for long post.

Swadhyayee 06:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Ganesha

In Devas section there is a mention of Ganesha. Ganesha is popularly known as Ganapati. Ganesha is known as Vighnaharta (removal of obstacles). Ganesha is accepted as Vighnaharta and Ganesha Puja is beginning of any auspicious events including Yagnas. The story is, when his head was sever and replaced by elephant head by Shiva, Ganesha was promised that he will be worshiped 1st in any occasion. Lokmanya Tilak mooted and started the idea of Sarvajanik Ganesh Puja to bring people close and decide strategy to fight against Britishers. Can we incorporate anything more about Ganesha, looking at Ganesha's significance amongst Hindus? Swadhyayee 09:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swadhyayee, In my humble opinon, the article sufficiently mentions the key points about Shri Ganesha. Most of the things you mentioned above are already mentioned in the article, and as for the things that are not in the Hinduism article, they can be mentioned on the Ganesha page. The article already mentions 2 names of Ganesha. It mentions Ganesh Puja. It has a picture of Him. And there is a sentence that says:

The elephant-headed deva known as Ganesha is worshipped before commencing any undertaking, as he represents God's aspect as the remover of obstacles.

It also mentions that stories about Ganesha can be found in the Puranas.

On another note, if you want to change "on" to "upon" in that sentence you were asking about, I have no objection. I personally prefer "on," but I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. HeBhagawan 14:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the idea that God is not subject to decay, while true, is already implied where the same paragraph states that God is eternal and changeless. Readers will understand that something that is eternal and changeless will not decay.

As for "God is beyond description," as opposed to "God cannot be described," I agree with you, and the article currently uses your preferred language on this point.

As for using the word "God" many times within a few sentences: You are right that ordinarily this is not preferable. In this case, however, I think it is the right choice. That is the approach taken by the book cited in that paragraph, and this approach serves to avoid calling God "he" "she" or "it", at least before the gender issue is explained. HeBhagawan 15:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with HeBhagawan once again, please do not refer to God as it. In school we usually get in trouble for refering to anything as it, so please don't refer to God as it in this article.--18:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A word or two on the state of the Hinduism article, as I see it so far

I'm an irregular and incidental Wikipedia contributor, and this is one of the articles that I have happened to edit in the past, albeit in a very minor way. Having just casually gone through the article (I'm learning a little more about Hinduism from it), I thought I'd share what I think about it. I must admit that I'm impressed by the article's condition. It read very easily, is rather elegantly structured, and far more organised than it ever was before. A few words of commendment to some of the recent and major contributors of the articles is appropriate. I'm sure you all know who you are: keep up with your very perceptive and objective editing and contribution. The sense of balance, neutrality and judgement in what to add and in phrasing is a delicate art akin to tightrope walking, and I think you guys are manoeuvring this compositional tightrope rather admirably. Best wishes, RaraTheAppleJuggler 15:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

TOCleft?

Hello everbody, just asking a question to everybody. If you have noticed I took out the wide gap in the article by placing the table of contents to the left. Apperantly the editors have liked it enough to keep it. Does anyone dissaprove of the Contents being placed to the left? Thanks!--Seadog 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I like what you did with the table of contents. Good work! HeBhagawan 19:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For consideration:

Isn't God beyond perception? and this is a significant experience of sages. Shashtras say that there are 3 stages of any existence, 1) Birth (Janma) 2) Decay (Jara) and 3) Death (Mrutyu).

Why God is beyond perception a POV?

According to the monotheistic and pantheistic theologies of Hinduism, God is, in the highest sense, One: beyond form, infinite, and eternal. God is changeless and is the very source of consciousness. God is beyond time, space, and causation and yet permeates everything and every being. God is beyond gender.

I am not understanding the need to write "God is, in the highest sense, One: beyond form, infinite, and eternal". The para of 7 lines had use of God six times and quiet more sentences beginned with the word "God", so I felt it to make a compound sentence to reduce frequent use of the word "God".

Which is proper, "God is beyond gender" or "God is genderless"?

The belief that God provides and cares for me tends human to project human's similar relations - mother and/or father upon God.

Does the current edit provide rational for projecting fatherhood and motherhood upon God? Without stating rational, will it not be seen as idiotic or superstitious who attack Hindus for having crores of Devatas?

Hindus worship these personal forms of God for a practical reason: it is easier to cultivate devotion to a personal being than to an abstract principle.

Where is the rational? What was wrong in, human mind needs an object to concentrate and so it is easy to cultivate devotion to The God in human form than to an abstract entity. Worshiping God in human form help in seeing the possibility of sublimating an individual to The God's state - imbibe sublimated virtues of God within one's self.?

Do you think spending some more time while editing would have done me and the article some justice?

Swadhyayee 04:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a small note - to say that God is genderless is saying that God has something less than us, which would surely be incorrect, whereas to say that God is 'beyond gender' sounds more appropriate from my perspective. The same with formless and 'beyond form'. Ys, GourangaUK 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. No problem.

Swadhyayee 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Swadhyayee, Thanks for placing your ideas here for consideration. I'll try to give each point due consideration, and I hope some other editors will do the same.

1. Some sages do say that God is beyond perception, but I avoided saying it myself because (a) the source I cited didn't say it, and (b) the article talks in many places about "realizing God" and similar things. I wanted to avoid having to explain the apparent contradiction of saying that God can be realized and saying that He is beyond perception. Both are true, but it would require a long explanation in the article.
2. 3 stages of any existence--I'm not sure what edit you are proposing in relation to this.
3. God is beyond perception: Why do we keep discussing this? Unless I'm missing something, the article already includes this statement using your preferred wording and nobody is trying to change it.
4. God is beyond gender: This wording is probably best and the least controversial.
5. Fatherhood and motherhood: Yes, the article provides a rationale.

   "Many consider it helpful to project such attributes on God — the myriad names and forms of God one finds in Hinduism are all ways for humans to approach the divine."

AND

"Some Hindus worship these personal forms of God for a practical reason: it is easier to cultivate devotion to a personal being than to an abstract principle."

So I don't think it will appear idiotic at all.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this here. I hope others will have some imput too, so you won't feel like I'm imposing my opinion. Jai Shri Krishna, HeBhagawan 05:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In place of "ways for humans to approach the divine" would you prefer "ways for humans to focus their minds on the Divine"? I would not object to that. HeBhagawan 06:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Realization of God is not disputable and is independent. Beyond perception means not attainable by Indriyas, mind or intellect. You take your time and if feel better, you may incorporate.

My view for Janm, Jara and Mrutyu is these words are used by Shashtras. We must make an article where the questions in the mind of viewers will crop and the viewer get answers without confusion from the article itself. I don't agree that "change" is proper substitute for "decay". When you say "decay" it gives a distinct sense.

I am not knowing about "beyond perception" found it's place in article. The comments here are copy pasted from my message to sf... who reverted my edit.

I am not feeling that "God is beyond gender" is better over "God is genderless". Which one would suit more in the sentence? No more fuss about it as the meaning retains.

"Many consider it helpful to project such attributes on God — the myriad names and forms of God one finds in Hinduism are all ways for humans to approach the divine"

I am not agreeable that it provides rational. My feeling is the article could be made in language of literature - understandable to scholars only and also in simple language understandable to a novice too. It seems you have been studying scriptures. Take both this writing to some young youth and see which one he is easy with.

Same goes with, "Some Hindus worship these personal forms of God for a practical reason: it is easier to cultivate devotion to a personal being than to an abstract principle.""

I am feeling we must find some better word to replace "cultivation"

Regarding "In place of "ways for humans to approach the divine" would you prefer "ways for humans to focus their minds on the Divine"? I would not object to that. HeBhagawan 06:25, 4 November

I will have to go through the article but I think both the sentence could be improved. Could it be replaced by something, "Visualising divine" something that one can visualise God in one's mind by certain ways. I am commenting without checking context.

Swadhyayee 06:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

To address your other points above:

1. You said: We must make an article where the questions in the mind of viewers will crop and the viewer get answers without confusion from the article itself.
   1. My comment: I agree completely. When the same paragraph God has been described as eternal and changeless, I consider it unlikely that a question will arise in the mind of the readers regarding whether God is subject to decay. They will understand. You are right that the scriptures use the words you mentioned to describe God, but they use thousands of other words as well--we can't include them all (example: I opened the Gita to a random page, and in the space of 2 verses the Gita describes God as avyasya (imperishable), anāshina (indestructible), and aprameya (immesurable). But we can't include all these descriptions of God--at least not in the main Hinduism article. Readers will get the general idea from the words eternal and infinite.
2. The level of the language: This is a difficult issue, and Wikipedians have not reached any concensus that I know of regarding what educational level the articles should be aimed at. My general approach is to aim at as broad an audience as possible: not making it understandable to scholars alone, but also not making it a childrens' encyclopedia. I have tried to use about the register found in general print encyclopedias like Britannica.
3. focusing on the divine: I think it may be better not to use "visualizing the divine" because some Hindus think of God as formless, though endowed with a personality (like the Muslim or Jewish God). I want to use language that is as inclusive of as many views as possible, and I think "approach the divine" or "focus the mind on the divine" includes the largest number of views.HeBhagawan 15:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Combining the short sentences into one longer sentence: Perhaps this would be a good thing to ask Mr. Tony about, since he has a very good sense about issues like these. The Wikipedia manual of style says this:

Use short sentences. . . .Use short sentences means use only necessary words, and sometimes using periods rather than commas.

Of course, you have to decide on a case by case basis, but this is a general rule.

1. If you would like to suggest better words to replace "cultivation," "begging," or "myriad," just tell me what your suggestions are and I will tell you what I think. Hopefully others will comment too. As for begging, we can't use "bhiksha" alone without any English word. Wikipedia's style manual says

   "It is fine to include foreign terms as extra information, but avoid writing articles that can only be understood if the reader understands the foreign terms."

   So we would need an English word as well. In my experience with sadhus who beg food, when speaking in English they use the word begging to describe what they do. There is no bad connotation so long as one understands that they are a sadhu. I am open to changing these if you can think of better words that maintain brevity an clarity. Speaking of which, you might find this page helpful: [[5]]. HeBhagawan 15:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And I won't insist on my views of style of most others disagree with me.HeBhagawan 15:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that we can't write thousands of name by which The God is described but I think there is a Mahavakya, probably "Te Tvam Asi" or "Ahm Brahmasmi" which means "The God is truth". Truth is defined as one which is existing before the world came in to existance and shall exist after the "Pralay" but it is free from Janm, Mrutyu and Jara. So I suggest that these three words if used will be most appropriate.

I feel of saying that we try to apply or place our mind in our "Ishta Devata" or the idol in front of us while we go for "Darshan". That particular moment we try to concentrate in the idol, try to visualise the idol or think about The God's Karuna etc. upon us. I don't know how you want to mention approach divine.

I have checked the context and somehow I am not comfortable with the language. I feel the language does not easily convey what you want to say. My feeling is here you should refer some book on "Saguna Bhakti" . This book is in support of my statements that human mind need an object to concentrate. Observe yourself, while either you are reading a book or writing something and someone come and go, you do not notice. Similarly, if you try to fix a small screw, you are so engrossed that you do not notice what's happening around. If there is an idol, one can concentrate. My other statement about imbibing each and every virtue from idol God is also subject of "Saguna Bhakti" . Since, you did not agree, I think "Saguna Bhakti" has lapsed from your mind. What you want to convey is a subject of "Saguna Bhakti". I think additional discussion may help us frame better sentences.

Regarding the word "cultivation", I will apply my mind and suggest you something but for "Begging" I am deadly against. Though, I believe some criminals have been hiding and move in guise of Sadhus, the Sadhus are a matter of our reverence. We can say Hindus feel an opportunity to feed a Sadhu and so Sadhus take lunch at the house of people who invite them.

Regarding most disagrees, I think it would be only fair when people with Hindu background support or object else it has to be consensus between two or three with Hindu background and interest.

My suggestion to you would be to start accepting other words or language if it retains your sense. Pl. don't insist to use your language in all cases or seek opinions. Last time you had invited more than 35 editors, how many showed the interest?

Hare Krishna.Swadhyayee 16:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

History of edits.

I have observed that the history of edits show certain edits done by a person while comparing with previous version but it is not so. If you make one edit, the history is showing more than one including done by someone else. This is confusing and irritating against a wrong person.

Swadhyayee 07:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

How about shifting?

Would it look better if Hinduism logo and links come on left hand side so as to fit the initial text on right sight; allowing one section utilise entire breadth and than placing "contents" on right hand side to enable more breadth for the text? If so done the narrow format of "core concept" text would be changed and fit in to better breadth.

Swadhyayee 11:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC) I think the format is good now, but I do not have a strong opinion about it. Its current state is courtesy of Arjun, and nobody has made any negative comments about it so far, so I don't see any particular reason to change it. HeBhagawan 14:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We can ask Arjun to try and see for a day. If, it looks better, we can retain it. To me, it seems the narrow coloumn like strip does not look good as also bottom lines are broader.

Swadhyayee 16:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

History edit software problem ?

Wait Priyanath, there is some problem or confusion with the software of edits. Few hours ago only, I have posed this problem on talk page of Hinduism. The edits which you are referring to as mine are not done by me. Whenever you pick up a particular edit from history, it shows previous edits in red ink, making one to believe that the edits have been done by the last person.

If there is any vandal, I might use pop-up and put to previous edit. In the process, because may change to becuase but as far as I remember, such thing has also not taken place.

Regarding "place and area", I have put my comments on either talk page of HeBhagawan or Hinduism. Pl. go through it.

I don't think, I have ever changed devotee bringing food, a Guru may also give..., I have not changed any ref.,

If, you are online, kindly immediately confirm and report the software fault as I do not know how to lodge the complaint.

Swadhyayee 17:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, I don't think there are any software faults. I think you simply made a mistake. Don't worry about it; it is corrected now. And let's please focus on making a good article.

As for whether Hindu users or non-Hindu users deserve to have their ideas considered, Wikipedia has this to say:

| || Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher . . . these kinds of content should be contributed to the sister projects, Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikisource, respectively.

Please see especially the rules on no original research:

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources.

and

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

So it would not be appropriate to screen out editors based on their personal backgrounds. Suggested edits must be based on the merits of the edits themselves; not on the identity of the editor.

Also, please do not continue to argue that it is unnecessary to follow Wikipedia policies. This is not really open to debate, and to argue that it is ok to ignore the rules to advance some particular cause is a losing argument.

Please take these comments in the spirit of cooperation and helpfulness I intend. I'm sorry if I should have said anything more delicately. Thanks, HeBhagawan 17:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits I did and have not done.

Priyanath, Here is a summary of what I did and what not. As far as possible, I did not use pop-up but manually changed the text. I am also shocked to see this history. I tried to revert a vandal today and my pop-up did not respond three to four times at least two times today.

I do not know how it happened. Could be software problem? Could you pl. check and give your observations?

Edits being shown having been done by me at 1.50am, 1.51am & 1.55am of 4 Nov. 06.

I could have done.

1) the kind of birth they will get in the future (1.50am)

2) the kind of birth (body) (1.51am)

3) make provision of seperate place in house (1.55am)

I might have done earlier, not today morning.1) room, or part of a room, (1.50am)

I have not done.1) observant (1.50am)

2) visiting the temple (1.50am)

3) The guru may also give the student (1.50am)

4) becasue (1.50am)

5) as much as possible (1.50am)

6) name="isbn1884852025-107"> (1.50am).

7) what kind of people they will become (1.55am)

Swadhyayee 17:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Area vs. place

Swad, If you want to change the word "area" to "place," I have no objection, and I think it is actually a fine suggestion. But I don't agree with adding the other words to the sentence. HeBhagawan 17:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think we should archive this page. It is getting long. Any objections? HeBhagawan 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Place is alright. You may not add spl. place in house.

It's already archived today.

Swadhyayee 19:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's archived already? How so?HeBhagawan 22:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The book which I mentioned yesterday could be "Sagunopasana" or "Murtipuja"

HeBhagawan,

The book which I mentioned yesterday could be "Sagunopasana" or "Murtipuja". If you get it from choice of your author it's fine otherwise this book is compiled from discourses of Pandurang Shashtri. Mind needs object to concentrate should be a subject of psycology.

Swadhyayee 01:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sir, (Not)worthadonkey, with your due apology, I am reverting your edits from Hinduism.

Sir, (Not)worthadonkey, with your due apology, I am reverting your edits from Hinduism. Though, appealing and appreciatable it will meet lot of objections. Pl. place your matter on talk page for discussion before including in the article.

Once again apologising for removal of your edit.

Swadhyayee 04:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Should it be corrected?

Core Concepts:

all share some traits in common with Hinduism,

Could it be written as: "all share common traits with Hinduism" or "all share some traits common with Hinduism"?

2) "Karma means good actions" is written in core concepts. Karma means action or deeds or good actions ? Swadhyayee 10:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swadhyayee, Thanks for reverting the POV edits.

Here are my thoughts:

1. Traits in common: The current wording is clear, unambiguous, and good English. I see no reason to change.

2. Karma: I assume you are referring to "karma (right action)" at the very beginning of the core concepts. The core meaning of karma in sanskrit (from the verb kṛ) is simply "action." However, the meaning can vary slightly depending on the context. In this context, I think "right action" is the best translation for this reason: If you are simply saying that a core belief of Hindus is "action," it will not make much sense to the reader. They will not know what kind of action you are talking about. They may think that a core concept of Hinduism is football or something, which involves lots of action. If you say "right action," then they will have a general idea about why it should be a core concept in the religion. Does that make sense? HeBhagawan 15:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we must remember that this article is read by Hindu's and Non-Hindus alike. With that being said the text needs to make sense to both groups of people. If anyone can think of the best way you should do it now.-_Arjun 16:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Karma (right action), and Moksha - "deeds" fits better? 59.182.11.81 16:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this Swadhyayee? Anyway, moksha means "salvation," not "deeds."HeBhagawan 16:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It was copy pasted text of the article. I forgot to put it in " ". I am telling deeds for "Karma". Swadhyayee 16:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Arjun, what is your opinion? HeBhagawan 16:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean you prefer "right deeds" to "right action?" To my ear, "right action" sounds more natural. But if others want to change this I don't have any strong objection. HeBhagawan 17:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Only deeds for Karma. You seem to be tired today. Swadhyayee 17:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Awards! Awards!

		The Pak made Indian Rs.1,00,000/=
		For No Reason To Any One Who Wants It ~ Proprietor

TAKE IT EASY DEAR & DELETE - Aum Namoh Shivay:

Horribly bad

This article has become horribly bad, from the good pieces of information it used to have to just oceans of mindless ramblings, and Aupmanyav's many-gods nausea. I will have to correct/rewrite many, many things soon. The article is ABSOLUTELY unencyclopedic. It seems as if some Hindu dharma-guru back in India is delivering sermons. The article is meant for the entire world, not just a couple of villages back in India. I am very sure that where I am now, in the United States, no one will be able to understand a single concept expressed here. I have actually little problem with the content, but much more with the unencyclopedic style. No wonder it is been rejected like an ugly maid. Cygnus_hansa 16:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Magic, Any suggestions you have for improvement are welcome. Just tell us specifically what your proposed changes are. HeBhagawan 17:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Deeds vs Action

Swadhyayee, Since nobody else is commenting, if you want to change "right action" to "right deeds" for now, go ahead. HeBhagawan 17:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)