Talk:Hinduism/Archive 10

message: Well, yes I agree with you. But Vedic and Santan did originate from Hinduism. User:Ujjwal Krishna
Keep it Hindu. Vedic, Sanatan tradition are different from present Hinduism. For all these traditions write separate articles. Especially in vedic times there was not Casteism and Untochability like today's Caste based Hinduism. 170.252.80.2 18:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Now, apart from style and on a point of substance: I have been of the impression that Hinduism is as much a religion as it is a way of life. This is what I've been told, have observed and read. Any comments on this? Should this be mentioned in the introductory text? Cheers. Splashprince 03:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User 170.252.80.2: That way you would have 30 or 50 articles on Hinduism. Hinduism is not a fossil, it keeps on changing according to times, so we will have one for Hinduism in 1200 BC to 1300 BC, another for 1100 BC to 1200 BC, and so on. What happens when two rivers merge, normally the merged river is known by the name of the greater river. In the same way indigenous belief (we call it Sanatan Dharma) and Vedic belief merged, and the resultant belief is again known as Sanatan Dharma. Aupmanyav 13:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About the heading =

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

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

message: Unless my "find" button is broken, there is no mention of the word "reincarnation" in this article other than as a link. There is one casual mention of the word "rebirth" (samsara) but it is not elaborated on. There is another mention of "samsara," but it is redefined to mean "householder's stage." I looked under "reincarnation" to see if Hindus actually believe in the concept, and sure enough here is what it says: "This doctrine is a central tenet within the majority of Indian religious traditions such as Yoga, Vaishnavism, Jainism and Sikhism." So somehow a central tenet of Hinduism was not explicitly mentioned on this page...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marty8 (talk • contribs) .
:A lot about hinduism is missing in the article.nids(♂) 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the problem is that there is already too much information in the article! GizzaChat © 08:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the size of the article is down to 'acceptable' again, and there can well be a brief statement on reincarnation. dab (ᛏ) 09:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we can remove the details of Shat Astik (Vedic) Darshans. Afterall, they are not the only Hindu philosophies and undue importance is given to them in this particular article. We also have Six Schools of Shaivism, six for Vaishnavism#Schools_of_Vaishnavism, one for Shaktism and some for Tantrik sects too. Most of these are unrelated to Vedic Darshans. nids(♂) 12:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this article about, Hinduism or Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism. Let them say about themselves. They don't need our help. Aupmanyav 02:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

message: What is the source of this statement. Has there been a census on the numbers for different sects of hinduism.nids(♂) 21:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Babub, first you filed an AfD. Now, why do you want to Push your POV in the Hinduism Article. Why cant you understand that there is much more to Hinduism than a single philosophy.nids(♂) 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced 

message: Nids, why do you want to push your nonsense here? Show me one reputable source for your rantings. Such actions of yours show you are here just to push the propaganda of nationalism and distort Hinduism for your nefarious ends. Babub→Talk 13:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you please go through the comments on the RfC debate that you filed.nids(♂) 13:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never filed any "RfC". If you mean the AfD, why don't you go throught the article Atheism in Hinduism which I edited based on the AfD? If you are here to seriously contribute to this encyclopedia, why don't you do some constructive edits to Atheism in Hinduism, nastika and other related philosophical issues? Why do you want to push your pov in the main article??? Babub→Talk 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i will improve them. But why are you so against in mentioning them in this article. How is it my POV by the way. There are more than a few philosophies that were atheistic. If you cant acknowledge them, than its whose POV.nids(♂) 14:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am not against mentiioning it in the article, but it should not be in the intro because, 1. They are a historical viewpoint held by some schools of Hindu philosophy but still not as a final doctrine (atheism is not the main thrust of these schools, but moksha is). 2. The present day "Hindu atheists" are mostly of the jingoistic variety who live the imaginary "way of life" world. My reply to 2. is: religion=way of life! Anyway to get back to the point, it can be mentioned in the "Philosophy" section but not in the intro, because 99.999% of Hindus are not atheist. You can contact any Hindu scholar in the world and ask him/her if he/she is an atheist. Babub→Talk 14:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can anyhow prove that 99.999% of the Hindus in the world are not atheists, than you can please remove this from intro. Till than, let this one line remain there.nids(♂) 14:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No no, my dear nids, the onus is upon you to prove that 99.999% of Hindus are not theists. Nevertheless, I've mentioned about the article in the Hinduism#Purva Mimamsa section. Babub→Talk 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not. When we are discussing the philosophy part. And leave this babub. There are too many things that are unsourced. How will you provide the source of above statement. If you want to move this to the middle of the article, than i may well delete the unsourced part in the above discussion.nids(♂) 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Will you also mention in it Samkhya part, which never turned theistic.nids(♂) 14:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't try to be clever, you have to give the source saying all Hindus are not theistic. (FYI, even Buddhists worship gods and are not atheists).Babub→Talk 14:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats an interesting statement. So, i just have to prove that all hindus are not theistic. Ok. Will do that and then add it in the intro section. Fine. How about the statement above which says that the majority of hindus are vedanta followers. Which Means no place for Shaivites, vaishnavites or even shaktas. Do you think that should remain in the intro ection unsourced.nids(♂) 14:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have simply asked you a question. And i dont think that you have edited anything that is non-compatible with Vedanta philosophy.nids(♂) 14:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the thing is that you dont want to accept anything which is non-vedanta but Hindu. By the way, does vedanta allow you to bury a dead instead of cremating him.nids(♂) 14:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe you are older than a teen. Am I right? Look at this page carefully: Wikipedia:What is a troll. Babub→Talk 16:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely wrong about my age. Well are you defining yourself?? I dont see much difference.nids(♂) 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you also know that by using certain diction, you have completely lost the moral ground.nids(♂) 16:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed! Trolls who just make some nonsense edits have no place in an encyclopedia project like this one. We're dealing with content here and we don't need verbal garbage here. Look at uncyclopedia: for one project that may have some use for it. Babub→Talk 16:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have forgotten something. Nobody is the owner of Wiki.nids(♂) 16:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go through Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for details.nids(♂) 16:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You know nids, Hinduism's atheism is somewhat vague and practiced by a minute number of people. More than a sentence is doing a disservice to mainstream Hindu practices.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With due respect Bakman, what you have written above is your opinion.You have cited no references to show that Hindu atheists are minute in number. Atheist Hindus or Atheism in Hinduism is a valid concept and should remain in the article. - Parthi 02:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.104.113 (talk • contribs) 
:why not put these images in a :Category:Hindu temples? the gallery clutters the talkpage and will just be lost in the archives while the category will remain accessible. dab (ᛏ) 08:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindu temples

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

message: This section needs some clarifying. Even though "God" is spelt with a capital G, it would be better if the article used the term "Supreme God." I don't want to use relgious termonology like henotheism, pantheism, monotheism or whatever but most Vaishnavs, Shaivs, and Shakts still believe in the existance of other devas/devis. For example, ISKON acknowledges that the Trimurti exists but Vishnu or more specifically Krishna is above Brahma (who they believe is the "second creator") and Shiva. Many Shaivas of course worship Ganesh and Kartikkeya while there are Shaktas who believe that Shakti is the divine mother of the trimurti. GizzaChat © 06:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree with you pretty much. This page should focus on the similarities between all Hindus, or at least most Hindus since it is a very diverse religion. If there are not many similarities then it should not be regarded as one religion. I think we will have to use the "standard" definition of Hinduism here, which is the religion that came from the Vedas and doesn't include Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. The page so big already and there is stil so much which isn't mentioned. GizzaChat © 01:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: I have not been a regular contributer to wikipedia, just fixing things here and there whenever I see something wrong. Today, I learned about official qualifications for 'good articles' 'feature articles' and was so disappointed to not see Hinduism, while Sikhism and others were present. Obviously I'm not screaming "Discrimination!" at Wikipedia, but "Aloof!" at myself, for not contributing earlier. I have made it a goal now to make the Hinduism article and all related articles at a pristine level, to be renowned in Wikipedia. Because there are many more contributers already active here, I thought it would be better to perhaps use this 'discussion' page to mention my first idea before doing anything too drastic ;)
What first comes to mind: I have always spoken of Hinduism as neither Polytheistic, Monotheistic, Monistic, Dualistic, Qualified Dualistic, etc. but instead, as "multi-theistic" as it is so intrinsically plural, and yet beautifully unified. I am not speaking of simply the Saiva, Vaishnawa, Shakta, Smarta, etc. sects, but the definitive nature of smriti in dharma, i.e. any paramasatguru's prescribed smriti defines a unique element of this "multi-theism"
So, what I would like to do, to emphasize this nature, which I see anyway, as a possibly potent means of elucifying the true esoteric nature of Hinduism, is to enumerate at the highest possible level. This may be best accomplished by a kind of "dharma tree", with, perhaps, a parallel grihashta/sanyaasi dharma tree.
The core definition of Hinduism, I see as an inclusion of the Vedas in smriti. And yet, I feel a very strong but subtle bond to Buddhism, Jainism, and with context, Sikhism. So, perhaps having this at the highest level, may be effective, though I cautiously present this idea as I know that some Buddhist sects, at least, do not wish to see this type of association. However, as this article should be a Hindu understanding, with a preliminary disclaimer, I would imagine it to be acceptable.
One reason that I would like to see it this way, is because I've seen apparent Hindu generalities taken for granted as being such and included as such. For example, people commonly speak of Hinduism as having an idea of seven lotuses (muladhara, svadisthana,  ... , sahasrara), but this is normally taken from Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, which, is not necessarily included in every element of our "multi-theism," as other elements may speak of only six, and specifically call them Chakras--not lotuses--and by different names. Now, because I have no examples from Hinduism articles in Wikipedia, I'm not going to say it's necessary for that purpose. However, if we categorize a very broad pool of beliefs that can be included or excluded from an particular element (i.e dharma), we can forever expel the possibility of any unnecessary, and potentially insulting, over-generalization, and again, I believe this can greatly clarify, if properly explained (which I am now very committed to doing), to people with little or no true Hindu exposure.
I am very eager to hear feedback on this idea; so much so that I'd rather not continue without it :-)
Saiva suj 19:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saiva suj and HeBhagawan, I'd strongly urge both of you to please read the following Wikipedia policies before launching your improvement drive: WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCE, WP:CITE, WP:MOS, WP:WIAFA. If your edits and information do not comply with these policies, they will be removed so please do read them thoroughly. Please see example featured articles like Sikhism to understand what is involved in writing a featured article. Rama's arrow 16:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Multi-theism or atheism. The best thing to say is that belief is a personal matter in Hinduism. 2. Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs generally don't want to be counted as hindus. Let it be rather than take up the issue with the millitant no-sayers. 900 million or 950 million does not make much difference. The bond, whatever is, would still be there. 3. Yoga or tantra, just like darshanas, perhaps they are better in their own pages. Hindus in general have no dealing with these esoteric practices. 4. Hinduism has never stressed on a particular theory of evolution, They have sort of side-stepped it, as they were more interested in Dharma. But my favourite, the Nasadeeiya Sukta, should be mentioned. 5. As Rama's Arrow says, writing for Wikipedia is not easy, one has to be careful. I limit myself to suggestions and rarely indulge in editing. I do agree that generally the hinduism-related pages are in bad shape and the credit goes to people who insist on presenting their personal views here. Aupmanyav 09:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: With due apology to the writer of Raj Yoga - a way to realise God, I have removed it as The Authentic Scripture "Srimad Bhagwad Geeta" has named only 3 methods, Bhakti Yog, Karma Yog and Jnan Yog.
Pl. leave a message on my talk page while this comment is replied.
Swadhyayee 17:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have removed Raj Yoga.. 

message: This discussion is getting very heated. Can we take a vote on whether to include Raj Yoga?
Support
# I vote yes, to keep it as there are 4 yogas. Chris 15:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Propose to take a vote'''

message: Considering this overwhelming consensus, I think it is only right to include the four traditional yogas of Hinduism in this main Hinduism article. Any further removal of Raj Yoga should be considered as vandalism. I have never heard such a silly contraversy created by a single person on such an important Wikipedia article. Chris 00:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please would the above 6 voters note the ridiculous changes made yesterday viewable on this history page? All ISBN numbers were removed from references. Images were removed. Even good grammar was changed to bad grammar. I think this is very very serious vandalism. The entire article has been harmed beyond simply the 4 yogas. I propose that we revert to the page as it was prior to the above changes made yesterday. I know this will lose some valuable changes made in the last 24 hours by others, but this appears to me to be a serious crisis until this one editor is banned. Please give me feedback before I do such a drastic reversion to how the article was prior to recent chaos. Without such a reversion, I fear it will take months to get the article back to the excellent state it was in the day before yesterday (6 October 2006). Chris 01:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments after the Vote

message: Thanks HeBhagwan for incorporating "A-Paurushey" and "Parampara", could you as well please incorporate branches of Vedas in your language?
Swadhyayee 17:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we consider to put branches of Vedas in the article? 

message: I would like editors to think, whether the word "Salvation" used in Jnan Yog is appropriate?  Jnan Yog is a way leading to mystical understanding and thus freeing oneself from the state of "Karta" and realising that "Atman" and "Brahman" is one.
Could the word "Salvation" be replaced by some better word?
Swadhyayee 01:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. Salvation is a good word to use in the context of false religions interpretations, but has really no place in sanatan Dharma.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd think either salvation or liberation is fine, but I'd say the meaning of these words are slightly different. Bakaman, may I ask what you mean when you refer to false religions? Mar de Sin Talk to me! 03:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant false interpretations. ex. (what wendy doniger thinks of Hinduism and what pat robertson says about it)Bakaman Bakatalk 15:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am for Liberation or Salvation, over Realization in Hinduism. I am not certain that dualists would refer to it as Realization, but instead a liberation from samsara. Saiva suj 20:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the word "Salvation" appropriate? 

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

message: Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in blocks being implemented due to violations of the three revert rule.  Instead of performing pure reverts, disputing persons should cooperatively seek out methods of compromise, or alternative methods of statement.  While edits made in collaborative spirit involve considerably more time and thought than reflexive reverts, they are far more likely to ensure both mutually satisfactory and more objective articles.  In the case of less experienced contributors, who have unknowingly made poor edits, reversion by two or more people often demonstrates that such reversions are probably not fundamentalistic or in bad faith, but instead closer to an objective consensus.
High-frequency reversion wars make version histories less useful, make it difficult for uninvolved users to contribute in a meaningful fashion, and flood recent changes sections and watchlists.  Low-frequency reversion wars, while still problematic, do not tend to cause the Wikipedia community as many problems.
HeBhagawan 15:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The admin Gizza who was probably keeping an eye on this page is on a wikibreak hence we are not getting enough help from admin. Is there any other admin around? Swadhyayee even after my warning and asking for citations for his claims, is still engaged in putting out of context details in the article's page. I just saw individual articles on Bhakti yoga, Raja Yoga, Karma yoga and Jnana yoga, of which I have edited none ever. All four unanimously claim that these four are the paths to attain Moksha and that the final outcome is the same. Rajyog is kept at the same level by all four articles. Then why this POV is being pushed. The current edits of Swadhyayee are out of sync. They not only lack citation (which chapter of Geeta says so?), but also destroy the asthetic beauty of that section. I will revert the article again. And I am again warning user Swadhyayee to not engage in a baseless edit war until he can prove his point using citations and references. Thanks --Apandey 15:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

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

message: There are lot of claims without citations in the article that suits to some of the editors.  Some of the editors ask for citations for the facts of general knowledge of any Hindu and remove additions to the article.
For example, The following claims are devoid of citations.  1)Claims in 1st para of the article   2) Claims between Ref. 8 & 9, although Hindus have clerical hierarchy of Shankaracharyas.  3) Claims in core concepts 4) The Hindu scriptural canon is not closed.  5) Hindus do not concern themselves much about whether the stories found in scriptures are accurate from a historical perspective... 6) Hindu sages in contrast with Judeo-Christain and Muslim prophets..., although Bhagavat contain predictions of Kalyug and elaborate birth of tinies etc. and Pralay.  7) they are more concerned with two things 1) teaching mystical things.....  8) The experience of divinity that can give one true peace..... 9) Bhakti-Yoga is prescribed for people of emotional temperaments...
Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga and Jnan Yoga is a way of life where as Raj Yoga is discipling body and mind for a session which may successfully last for few seconds to few hours or days.  Yet they are merged together and not allowed either to be segregated from one another or allowed to be followed by clarifying comments, in the name of citations needed.
My objections are not against for claim of result of Raj Yoga but my objections are for placing them together simply because each term end with Yoga.  To me, Bhakti, Karma and Jnan is subject of science where as Raj Yoga is training of mind and body.
Well those who ask for citations to my edits have to read Srimad Bhagwad Geeta in entirety which they may not want to do and just seek citations to remove my edits.
Is this befitting NPOV policy?  Will the concerned editors exhibit honesty in thinking?
Swadhyayee 02:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are lot of claims without citations in the article. 

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

message: Thanks Chris, HeBhagwan and everyone for your efforts. The article even after so much of discussion, is still being vandalised by one user. I propose we block this user from further edits on this article. I will not respond to any of his alleagations now because that will be below my dignity. All other editors on this page have also expressed their views. This is the height of vandalism. A user, just because he thinks certain things are in certain ways is pushing his POV. When citations and logic are provided, he is not willing to read them. When citations, logic are asked, he is not willing to provide except for the fact that "I think so", "I feels so" etc. And as if that was not enough, he is also alleging people for being sock puppet etc. which is highly derogatory. He must be blocked from this page to prevent further vandalism. And many thanks to HeBhagwan for providing so many references and continually making effort to make it a good article.  Thanks.  --Apandey 08:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Swadhyayee, you should first accept that you have consensus against you. In such cases, you must source your claims excellently: if you provide watertight evidence, policy will of course trump incidential consensus, but so far you have really done nothing to substantiate your position. Edits like this one may not be malicious, but of such poor quality that they are worse than worthless. See also my post to User talk:DaGizza: your first concern will be to improve the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali and Raja Yoga articles, which are very poor at the moment. dab (ᛏ) 14:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

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

message: I think some of the translation of of V. 8 of Chapter IV of Geeta is missing.  "Paritranay Sadhunam, Vinashaya Ch Dushkrutam" The God takes human form to help sages (the people who work to protect religion in difficult times) and destroys evil persons.
This is very important as it projects the cause of incarnation of God.  Another thing that "Age" is translated for "Yug" [ Yuge Yuge ].  If I mistake not, the term "Yug" means 1000 years.
I wish somebody confirm the meaning of "Yug".
This message, increases the faith of the people who work for protecting the religion or righteousness and it implies that The God does not take human form, untill and unless, humans work to restore righteousness.
I feel that the translation here of V. 7 & 8 of Ch. IV of Geeta is devoid of proper meaning.
Swadhyayee 08:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to say that what you think is not correct. Re-incarnation is considered as rebirth of humans (as humans or any other thing). It has nothing to do with Avatars. Re-incarnation is Punarjanm. Any other editors may please also contribute. Thanks. --Apandey 11:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avatāras (incarnations of God) 

message: Can somebody help to expand the History section and to create a "Hindu Festivals" section?  That would be more valuable than tinkering with the sections that already exist.  I will do it myself if nobody else does, but I am rather busy so I cannot spend as much time on it as I would like. HeBhagawan 14:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To both of guys, Swadhyayee and HeBhagawan, thanks for devoting soo much time on this article. But, this article right now is ridiculously long. Please go through Wikipedia:Article size. Also, please don't expand any section. Instead, focus on improving their quality. Try make them brief and create new articles if needed. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 05:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Festivals and History

message: I tried to block IP 204.184.18.230 as it was vandalising using slang (check it's 1st edit), later my own revertions was not taking place.  I just tested to check possibilities of my edit and reverted to earlier position. Sorry.Swadhyayee 17:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing 

message: I am copy pasting here, Wikipedia policy for statements true and of common knowledge, simply because they aren't sourced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Requesting_sources
Requesting sources:
Do not remove statements that you believe to be both true and common knowledge, simply because they aren't sourced. Don't, for instance, remove a reference to "earth's elliptical orbit" simply because the writer has not supported the assertion that planetary orbits are elliptical.Swadhyayee 02:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not remove statements that you believe to be both true and common knowledge, simply because they aren't sourced. 

message: I have requested Ragib to look in to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ragib
Swadhyayee 04:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have requested Ragib to look in to. 

message: This user is not acting in good faith. Anything that is told to him, he either does not put any effort to read and understand OR he simply ignores it. If all the other editors have a consensus to something, then also he is not ready to understand the problem. I have given exact references of his poor edits earlier but he seems to blame me of sock puppetry again and again. He is threatening to bring admins, mediators, advocates, even Jimmy Wales but has not been able to logically prove any of his points except for "I think so", "In my opinion" etc. and then accusing others to take sides and so on. Repeating what I have said before is just a waste of my time and energy. I just wish some admin (any admin of his choice) comes here, sees the edit history of the main article and the talk page and expresses his/ her views. I am extremely sorry to see the direction this discussion is taking now. That said, I will continue reverting any efforts of vandalism (by any user), incorrect or monopolistic views and unwanted additions whenever I have time.
HeBhagwan, as I have said before and others are pointing also, please keep a check on the article's size. I believe details of individual yogas, incarnation etc must be moved to their respective articles. What do you think. --Apandey 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin intervention needed 

message: Use of "one" third person sigular form is more appropriate than using "we", hence I have reverted the edits. Swadhyayee 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "one" is more appropriate than "we". 

message: First of all, editors if possible, please add your comments in sequence here. Create a separate heading if required but add in the end. It helps to view the difference much faster as compared to, if the new comments are put in old section. I know it is not always possible to do but please try.
About the proposed reorganization etc., I would like to say the following:
* Current changes of Classification of Scriptures section looks fine to me.
* Reincarnation details can also be moved to its main article. (It is moving back and forth right now).
* Section on Multiple Ways to Reach the Goal (yoga) also can be shortened IMHO. Too much details of individual yogas are given when we already have separate articles for that. But even if we want to keep it, we can reduce the length of Jnana Yoga and Raja Yog probably. Swami Vivekananda's reference (picture) is also not very suitable here (although I like him a lot). We should be OK to remove that.
As far as use of one over we, he, she is concerned, I am fine with either as long as the sentences are in correct english. Thanks.  --Apandey 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: Everybody:
I made a few edits (minor ones) to slightly reduce the size of the article.  I have a proposal: Shall we delete the text of the Geographic Distribution section, retaining only the link to the "Hinduism by Country" article?  Most of the information in that paragraph is in the Hinduism article's introductory section already, so it is somewhat redundant.  Tell me what you think.
Update: Swadhyayee reverted the changes I made to reduce the size of the article. I don't feel strongly one way or the other about the size of the article, but I just wanted to note here that the article in its present condition does not contain most of the changes I made for brevity.  Yesterday I asked a sadhu (Hindu monk)  to look over the article. He did so and said that perhaps it should be more concise. I asked hm for suggestions regarding which parts should be deleted or moved, and I am awaiting his reply.  Of course we are not required to take his suggestions, but we can take them into consideration. I will post his reply here after I hear from him again. HeBhagawan 15:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hinduism by Country

message: I had doubts, in the name of changing some of the material or Karma and re-incarnation, you would have removed all my contributions.
When you will develop sense of fairness? Swadhyayee 01:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I see.. 

message: Named participants:
* Swadhyayee
* Apandey
* HeBhagawan
* Chris
If you would, please give your input on the case page. There is no mediator selected as of yet, though please do not let this keep you from attempting to negotiate a truce and terms between yourselves. If any of the involved parties feel page protection is needed, please let me know and it will be provided temporarily, though this is not the preferred method of resolving disputes.
If any neutral party would like to work as mediator, feel free to sign up on the mediation page. Be aware that you're required to put "truth" aside for this and concentrate on resolving the dispute and adhering to the Wikipedia standards of Verifiability and Reliable Sources.
Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t)  02:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Case: [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-09 Hinduism]] 

message: I have moved the Concept of God section to the top of the page and the yogas further down. I think this may be a little closer to what ShaivaSuj was suggesting.  What do you think? Do you like it this way, or should we change it back?HeBhagawan 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Various comments

message: I think that my vote is going to say that the Article is currently at an ideal length. True, it is long, but the edits that people made today made it somewhat shorter.  Hinduism is not only a vast subject; it is also a very important one.  Wikipedia policies recognize that for such topics it may be necessary to have a somewhat long article.  So, in my opinion, most work done on the article at this point should be in the area of adding citations, rewording any awkwardly-phrased sentences, and dealing with any doubtful, unsupported facts it may contain.  Also, we should work on some of the other Hinduism-related articles that are in TERRIBLE condition. For example, take a look at the Shakti article! HeBhagawan 01:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I did it right..........go ahead and take alook.--Seadog.M.S 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Misc. Comments

message: Ok, one of the requirements for featured article is that you can't have any obvious gaps in your article. However we have one: the history section. It only includes the ancient vedic period right now.  Of course, since Hinduism is thousands of years old, it is not easy to write the entire history without making the article way too long.  I've tried to write a few paragraphs on the most essential points.
I'm going to post them so you all can have a look. Tell me what you think: should we keep it? If you think we should delete what I wrote, we can do so. HeBhagawan 04:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History