Talk:Hinduism/Archive 16

message: There is too much detail. Bhakti/Karma Yoga both have a good amount of information. Any extra detail can go to the Raja Yoga and Jnana Yoga pages. GizzaChat © 03:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I have still not understood what Raja Yoga is, if it is not Jnana Yoga or Hatha Yoga. To me it is a word that has been picked up by the modern gurus who are selling their merchandise in India and in foreign countries. Aupmanyav 06:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mahaṛṣi Patanjali is not a modern guru. Also, Raja Yoga can be considered as very analagous to the Dhyana Yoga as described in the Bhagavad Gita. I am sure you know that Raja Yoga is not Hatha Yoga, but is intertwined with Jnaana Yoga. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 17:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does one do in Dhyana, one thinks and tries to understand, so it is the same as Jnana Yoga, is it not? Aupmanyav 18:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Namaskar. I do not follow Yoga or Vedanta, nor can I be considered an authority on the Yoga Sutras. As I understand from a Śaiva point of view, Dhyāna is remembering and contemplating His or One's own nature, while Jñāna Yoga is studying śastras. This does indeed empower Dhyāna moreso, however it is the Vedantin point of view that Karma Yoga in the form of seva also empowers the practice of Dhyān. Thus, they are indeed related, but distinct. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 15:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sujit, IMHO, there is no difference. Even when one studies sastras, one always thinks whether they match with what we find in life, we contemplate, this can be done only with full dhyana, one-minded concentration, otherwise we would not understand sastras. Aupmanyav 14:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Aupmanyav, Dhyana Yoga is the process of maintaining awareness on Brahman, while Jnana Yoga is process of knowing Brahman. The reason why these two must be separate is because they can exist on their own: one may contemplate on an apple, a tree, the universe, their own notion of God, without jnana, and they will be carried to that realization. Similarly, one may realize God without that prolonged awareness, by simply bringing into reality that intellectual knowledge; that is Jnana Yoga. For example, think of a wild theoretical physicist who solves the ultimate question and proves, beyond all (of his own) doubts, that God exists, and that he is God; that is the essence of self realization with jnana yoga. The reason why you may be thinking of the two as one, is because almost no one practices Dhyan without practicing Jnan and vice versa. Patanjali makes it clear that a major obstacle in meditation is not having the accurate Jnana. Note, this will not ultimately deter in the end, as Rsis were able to be carried to that point with nothing. Practicing Dhyan without Jnana is like reinventing the wheel, but it is possible, because they are distinct. On that same note, most Hindus do not practice Jnana by themselves with the serious hope of self realization. You must see that the idea of moving useless intellectual knowledge into ones actual reality by one's own limited intellect is a strange thing to even conceive of. Thus, that movement of intellectual knowledge to realized knowledge happens through Dhyan. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 22:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raja Yoga/Jnana Yoga sections 

message: The article says 'RigVeda is theoretically the most sacred and supreme scriptural authority.' IMHO, theoretically is superficial here. I suppose there is no doubt in any hindu mind that the book is the most important for us. So, one could say so practically also. I suggest that the word theoretically be removed. Aupmanyav 18:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hard to describe the Vedas because Hindus regard it as very sacred but not that many people have read it or try to understand it. The majority of Hindus study newer texts like the Bhagavad Gita which are supposed to tell the "essence of the Vedas." GizzaChat © 21:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, "Though Hindus consider Ṛg Veda as the most sacred and supreme scriptural authority, only paṇḍits study it, and most others study more easily understood smṛitis." ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 21:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Saiva here, basically I have actually read the Rig Veda and understand it, but it does seem a whole lot different from the Upanishads or even the Bhagavad Gita for example. Well thats my opinion. — Seadog 21:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about "Among such texts, the Vedas are the most ancient, and form the foundation of Hindu philosophy." ? By calling them the "foundation" we cover not only the point that the Vedas form the basis for Hindu thought, but also the fact that they have been variously interpreted, summarized and expanded.  Abecedare 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Foundation, again, it is not the only source. A building is built on many stilts. So is hinduism. If Vedas provide Brahman, other native beliefs provide Vishnu, Shiva, Mother Godess, and a host of other deities. Exclusivity, my friend, is not a characterstic of Hinduism. Aupmanyav 17:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hardly one a hundred thousand of our one billion may have read Valmimki's Ramayana, but that does not matter, because we have read Tulsi's Awadhi Ramayana, Kambana's Tamil Ramayana, Madhava Kandali's Assamese Ramayana, Krittivasa's Bengali Ramayana, Thunchaththu Ezhuthachan's Malayalam Ramayana, Balarama Das' Oriya Ramayana, Ranganatha's Telugu Ramayana, Premanand's Gujarati Ramayana, Narahari's Kannada Ramayana, Sridhara's Marathi Ramayana. Similarly people may not have read the Vedas but the principle's propounded in them pervade hindu mindset. We are born into it, and that makes a difference. Aupmanyav 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rig Veda, theoretically? 

message: Could the first paragraph be changed to the follwing, perhaps it reads better. I have made no additions or substractions in the content, only a rearrangement.
'The word 'Hindu' is derived from 'Hapta-Hendu' of the Avesta, the sacred scripture of Zorastrians of Persia (Vendidad: Fargard 1.18). It corresponds to 'Sapta-Sindhu' (the land of seven rivers), the northwestern part of Indian subcontinent. Sindhu (Sanskrit: सिन्धु) literally means a river, Sea, or a large body of water. Sindhu is the Indian name of River Indus which finds extensive mention in the Rig Veda of the Indo-Aryans, which hindus adopted as their most important scripture. The term 'Hindu' was used by Persians for people who lived in the Indian subcontinent around or beyond the Sindhu.'
As for the second paragraph, I think it may not be necessary (except for our linguist friend Cygnus_hansa), and perhaps could be dispensed with in the interest of need for shortening length of the article. :) Aupmanyav 18:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already reomoved a paragraph in between the two remaining because it was about the word "India" was derived which should only be in the India article, not here. We should probably remove the second paragraph too. As you say only linguists would find it interesting. Perhaps we can add an extra sentence or two in order to compensate for the removal of the second paragraph? GizzaChat © 22:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The linguistic argument cannot be done away with. Cygnus_hansa 11:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the democratic environment of Wikipedia, 'the linguistic argument should not be done away with' sounds better. Aupmanyav 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Ha, ha, somebody sure has reservations about Aupmanyav's type of atheistic Nirguna Brahmanism? Aupmanyav 19:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure whether we can allow your own specific Hindu atheist views. We can definitely mention the Sankhya and Mimansa atheism. What we can say somewhere in the article that "Shankaracharya's Advaita Vedanta can be interpreted atheistically", which I have read in academic books. We would also need a source for something which may sound controversial otherwise. GizzaChat © 22:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Friends, I am not pointing at anybody and I am not asking for a change. These are not my views, they have been recorded in many hindu scriptures. I am just amused that how we had the knowledge and how it has come to be covered with theism (not that everybody can understand, so no problem with theism too). Kena Upanishad (1-5) said "Know that alone to be Brahman, not that which people adore here". Aupmanyav 08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  polytheism to monotheism or even monism 

message: Why is there Hindi in the intro?  It should only be sanskrit.--D-Boy 05:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point there, why not Tamil or Bengali? Aupmanyav 14:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it should probably be Sanskrit. — SeadogTalk 03:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Has this already been rectified? I was looking but could not find the Hindi you are talking about. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 16:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindi? 

message: For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, especially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Hinduism! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 08:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you need a separate page on Masturbation in Hinduism? The topic is already covered by the Wiki article on Masturbation. Aupmanyav 13:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki is not a porn site, this is definitely something far (eons, parsecs) from Hindu pracices. The only notable thing connecting Hinduism and this nasty stuff may be Kama Sutra.Bakaman 16:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Namaste Bakaji, While I can understand your discomfort with this topic, it is not unreasonable to provide information on it. For instance, you and I, both as Hindus and Humans, would consider murder reprehensible, however, as wikipedians, we must be ready to provide an article about Hindu views on murder, talking about ahinsa, etc. should we need to. Unfortunately, I do find some mistakes in CyberAnth's reference to Tantrika practices/views on masturbation. There is no siva-yogini involved in masturbation, and is a means to anything, but instead a wasteful indulgence. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 17:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The article section on Hinduism, as it stands, came from the main article, masturbation. I hope through Hindus' assistance to correct the false information and beneficially add to it for the sake of chronicling human knowledge in this area. CyberAnth 07:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The people to whom Kama Sutra belongs are not likely to experience any discomfort in discussing masturbation, or sodomy, or lesbianism. That is besides the point. Sujit, As I mentioned in my post above, the topic is already there in the Wikipage on Masturbation. Why do we need a separate page on 'masturbation in hinduism'? CyberAnth knows that such an article 'might not be peaceful, and be conflict-ridden' as he mentioned at a user's talkpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lyrl). Is it scholarship, or slandering, or pornography, or seeking conflict, what does he want? Aupmanyav 18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aupmanyav is right that the topic is already discussed at Masturbation#Religious_views. My guess is that CyberAnth (and others) plan to expand on the topic (i.e., "Religious views on masturbation", not "Masturbation in Hinduism" alone) and break it out in an article of its own. If there is enough reliably sourced material on the subject, clearly, this is a wise move and I don't see why it should be considered pornographic or filthy in the least. Abecedare 19:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, Abecedare has read my intent accurately. Please know that I strongly share your disdain for pornography and that I very much agree that this article is beneficial to human knowledge. CyberAnth 07:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gizza, that sounds like some very interesting information that might be added to the article. CyberAnth 07:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps what Indians abhor is exhibitionism, and not sex. We believe sex belongs to the bedroom. Aupmanyav 06:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Swadhyayee, it is unfortunate that you are counting me as a supporter. I was the first to point out that it is not correct and that the topic is already covered on a Wiki page. Makes me wonder if it is just some prejudice against me? Aupmanyav 13:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Namaskar Swadhyayeeji. I am not in favor of a major association of Masturbation with Hinduism, but if they are creating an article or even a section of an article with it, then I think we should contribute what we can, to accurately represent Hindu Dharma. I edited the section here, striking out most of what I thought was irrelevant. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 17:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am glad to know that we are both on one side. However 'Hinduism states that even the intercourse should only be restricted for objective of procreation only' may not be correct. The normal blessing to a hindu women always is 'Shata Putravati Bhava' (May you have a hundred sons). In Hindi we say 'Dudhon Nahao, Pooton Phalo' (May you be prosperous enough to bathe in milk, may you be laden with sons like trees laden with fruits). There was always a backlog and every hindu householder and his wife had to work overtime to accomplish that. Few succeeded, like Gandhari, some overdid it, like Maharaja Sagar (with sixty thousand sons), Daksha succeeded only partly (with 28 daughters). We have not yet counted daughters. Between two sons there must have been one or two daughters. So, I do not think hindus ever subscribed to once-in-a-year sex whatever the sages said. Thanks. Aupmanyav 02:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for missing this part of the discussion, well I have no clue on what the exact stance would be on this subject. As from reading various texts and philosophy there is nothing exactly stated about this. So I honestly wouldn't know what to do, is there anyone who knows? — SeadogTalk 03:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Sex is an act of kama and dharma in grhastha. However, it is important to realize that this is not the topic. The topic here is masturbation. It is vaidika thought to not condone or to forbid masturbation but instead dismiss it (for brahmacaris) as a distraction from their brahmacarya dharma of studying, etc. It may be seen as kama for grhasthas and for retirees, and generally not performed by sannyasins but this is very subjective. From a tantrika perspective, sex may kama or as dharma for grhasthis as well, but it can also fall under kramacarya. This is called kama-kala which is maintaining awareness on the conjunction of siddha and yogini, however this is not limited to sexual intercourse. When the yogini, form, is united with the siddha, sight, this is also called kama-kala. There is no siddha-yogini in masturbation. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 03:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On a different note, I am reminded of Acarya Abhinavagupta's concluding verse of the fourth chapter of his Gitartha Sangrah (His commentary on the Bhagavad Gita): "विधत्ते कर्म यत्किञ्चिदक्षेच्छामात्रपूर्वकम् | तेनैव शुभभाजः स्युस्तृप्ताः करणदेवताः ||" vidhatte karma yaktiñcidakṣecchāmātrapūrvakam // tenaiva śubhabhājaḥ syustṛptāḥ karaṇadevatāḥ. He is saying that your mind and sense organs flow towards the objective world, so instead of wasting your time, trying to subdue and control your mind and sense-organs, get that thing that you want; enjoy it: then you will be clear to meditate. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 03:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say masturbation was unknown in ancient India, the brahmacharis were busy in their studies and physical exercises (I have tried it myself, you can control the urge with pushups and situps), grahasthas had full access to normal sex with one or more wives. That is why there is hardly any mention in books. Though the discussion hardly belongs to this page. Aupmanyav 03:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that this is in fact an important distinguishment between Hinduism and most conservative, repressive, Western and/or Abrahamic religions. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 03:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes me too Saiva what do you mean, please clarify. — SeadogTalk 04:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Namaste Swadhyayeeji and Seadogji. I only meant that I think this is not a topic to be dismissed as the Hindu views on sexuality, etc. are very distinct from the more repressive views of the Western religions/traditions. If you mean for me to clarify exactly how it is less repressive, etc, please look at my above comments. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 04:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What I said before about vaidika thought, it is my understanding of vedant, etc. but unfortunately, I do not have any scripture to cite. If you consider my following statements about the role of sex as kama and dharma in grhasthāshram, you might be able to understand why I feel that masturbation is nothing but a petty distraction to brahmacaris. Also, I have no idea who said what about whose penis sizes. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 05:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I suppose the editors agree to edit out such extraneous insertions, if any, and concentrate on hinduism? Aupmanyav 07:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Hinduism]]

message: God: both principle and person
Hinduism has been perceived by some as polytheistic, and its devotees are typically quite open to reconciling multiple gods and goddesses, often from quite different traditions, into a single 'Vedically'-based worldview. However, its many divergent sects and philosophical schools culminate in beliefs ranging anywhere from panentheism to more devotional brands of monotheism. For instance, Advaita Vedanta holds that there is one originating source, cosmic spirit, or godhead (depending, again, on one's sect within the overall school), which may manifest in the material world in multiple forms.
I think this section may be worse than before. It has grown more awkward with more passive voice, and seems to ramble towards the end of the paragraph. It may actually lead the reader to confuse Advaita with monotheism. Also, this title has not really improved. Perhaps we could rename it to, "Nature of the Divine"?
ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saiva Suj: You have the peculiar antipathy towards the passive voice that prescriptivist, Latin-inclined English scholars had in the 19th century. But I'm sure the recent edits will be seen as somewhat better than before. Peace --68.173.46.79 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr.NewYork'er, I think my roots in that antipathy originate in my inclination towards Paanini's Sanskrit, obviously more complex and wondrous than Latin though I have studied both. I think that the general rhetoric of encyclopedias also hold passive voice in disdain. Personally, I feel that the presence of passive voice indicates poor planning while writing...or typing. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 21:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some anonymous editors have made it worse, the current version talks about "Upanishadic" and "Post-Upanishadic" which is very confusing. GizzaChat © 21:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. The recent changes have degraded the quality of the article, and furthermore, adds/replaces major content without being discussed. I would like to revert them. Please tell me if you favor/oppose this. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 05:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you proposing to revert (1) the recent changes in the "God:both principle and person" section, or (2) all the edits by the anon. user ? Personally I support the former option, but not the 2nd, since I found some of his/her edits quite good (for example, , ). Aside: I hope the IP editor registers and becomes a regular collaborative participant here, since IMO he/she has some good ideas to improve the page. Abecedare 05:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been huge changes made to this article, including the loss of citations and shift in content, without any discussion. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Another useful link: diff of 'before' and 'current' versions. (Note: the changes in intro are mainly reordering of sentences) Abecedare 04:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the second part is actually a Dvaita, or more specifically Vishishtadvaita belief because mulitiple forms mean avatars. GizzaChat © 11:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good catch! Any specific suggestions on what we should replace the second sentence by ? The aim should be to present a concise (i.e. one sentence), but accurate description of a school of thought, which illustrates how the Hindu conception of God does not fall into neat classes like polytheism, monotheism etc. Abecedare 11:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can say 'Advaita comes in two shades, worship Brahman at the practical (Vyavaharika) level, but no worship at the absolute (Parmarthika) level.' That is what, I suppose, Sankara opined. Aupmanyav 18:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry to bring this up again 

message: Many reference links in this article point to an existing link by name (like ... ). While removing text containing reference links please make sure you copy over the primary reference link to the next link that points to it. This information can be obtained by looking at the references section. Multiple references to the same link looks like this:
: 22. ^ a b c d e f g h Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary
A broken link is hard to fix if not found quickly.
ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out to us. It is definitely better to keep that in mind, before we lose the original ref's in history! ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 08:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to editors: Regarding ref links 

message: 'However, those who view Hinduism as an ethnicity more than as a religion tend to believe that to be a Hindu, one must be born a Hindu.' Where is the citation? Perhaps Swami Bhaskarananda thinks so, but that would be his personal opinion, not everybody is required to go by that. Aupmanyav 07:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a reasonable statement, as he is saying that "those who view Hinduism as an ethnicity more than as a religion tend to believe that to be a Hindu, one must be born a Hindu". Swami Bhaskarananda is a renowned Swami of the Ramakrishna Maṭh. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 07:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aupmanyav, you are right. The sentence needs to be sourced - I have tagged it accordingly. As I read it, the sentence is not attributed to Swami Bhaskarananda currently.Abecedare 07:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Swadhyayeeji, I love that analogy. However, I think that Hindus also permit conversions to and from Hinduism "ekam sat..." etc. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 07:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've heard you can only be born into hinduism and everyone is born hindu.--D-Boy 08:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the general Hindu belief but not everybody believes in it. Say that to the gora Hare Krishnas! GizzaChat © 08:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope its not general. Please do explain that "general belief" to Indonesians where the Hindu percentage has gone from 2% to by some high estimates 9% and PHDI estimates around 6% Hindu. Do try to explain that. Or try Swami Ghanananda and Satuguru Bodhinath Veylanswami. ITs a misconception, not a belief.Bakaman 22:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hindu scriptures do not talk about religion at all, they talk about 'dharma', which as you know is different. Further, Lord Rama said, 'Satyam Nasti Param Padam' (Nothing is higher than truth). Now if a person in a certain religion realizes that what has been told is not the truth, then the person cannot be compelled to follow it even if it may be the religion of birth. Secondly, a person who embraces hinduism may not be a hindu for a particular sect or belief, they are free to consider the person as a non-hindu, while there may be other sects and beliefs who may not be against it. It cannot be one person's or sect's fiat. Aupmanyav 13:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is kind of you and Sujit to honor me by calling me 'ji', but it is not really necessary. 'Dharma' is duty/righteous action. Religion is akin to 'Mata' (belief). Again 'mata' is passive, it does not encourage you to fight as religion does. The mother's milk analogy might not be wholly correct. What if there are major differences between what the 'mother's milk' says and what the person considers the truth? All religions do not have the freedom to form one's own views as Hinduism has. Aupmanyav 19:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: According to Hinduism was Brahmaji born a Hindu? No, he learnt the science of sanatana-dharm through a process of austerity and prayer (the particular form of which depends on which scripture you read) and he is the oldest Hindu in this universe. If the first teaching of Krishna in Bhagavad-Gita is you are not this body you are an eternal soul, then how can anyone argue you have to be Hindu only according to your current material body which is but a temporary flash in the pan of your spiritual reality? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes mother's milk is a very good analogy. Swadhyayee uses it very well to give examples of his viewpoint. — SeadogTalk 02:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with swadhyayee. Chapter 12 of the Gita is clear on what makes a good Hindu. Do refer to Sloka 11 and all others ending in sa me priyah. One merely needs to be devoted to attaining unification with the Brahman, and 36 other qualities. O also dont refer to me as "ji" either (this goes for everyone), compared to most of you, I'm pretty young and I rarely return the favor (not out of disrespect, just I'm not used to it), so dont make me feel bad lol.Bakaman 02:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Geeta does not say whom to rever and whom not. This would be my decision based on what they say and how I would take it. But that does not mean that I would fight with them. I would co-exist happily. If I have problems with what is believed in some other religion or some other tradition, I would not rever them. That word is too demanding. A 5 times namazi may be a saint or a terrorist. Aupmanyav 11:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion 

message: Please use this take page for discussing the religion only. All Hinduism related topics should go to WP:HNB (hinduism notice board). Look at WP:INB for example, I hope our project can be as efficient as that one.Bakaman 03:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: D-Boy and I once tried that. We said anything related to Hinduism but not to this article should be discussed on the WikiProject WP:HINDU talk page. But it didn't work and I have doubts this one wil; too. GizzaChat © 03:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whole-heartedly support Baka's sentiments. In fact this is not even a forum to discuss Hinduism per se, but rather the Hinduism article. So hopefully we can focus our discussion on proposed improvements to the article and back our opinions by concrete citations. Abecedare 03:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... and to practice what I preach,and back up my opinion, here is a quote from  Wikipedia help pages: "Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject, even though they may seem inextricably linked." (Emphasis added) Abecedare 03:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm saying that WP:HNB should become the spot for all discussions on Hindu topics not related to this main article. In fact I was bold enough to remove the off-topic discussions to the HNB.Bakaman 05:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done Baka! I was too lazy to ever enforce this. Swadhyayee, please see the top box fourth bullet point on this page. It is very important to understand this since it is a fundamental Wikipedian concept. GizzaChat © 09:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are discussing about this article then it goes here. All other Hinduism discussions (including our long chats on philosophy) go to WP:HNB.Bakaman 17:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Swad. I never said you were responsible solely for off-topic discussions! Many people here occasionally get carried away and start talking about something related to Hinduism but not to this article. Those discussions need to go to WT:HNB GizzaChat © 22:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Swad it is very important that you read THIS. You said general community don't take interest in discussion related to a particular article. Sorry but on Wikipedia discussion has to pertain to the article. And everyone I know here except for people on this page do only discuss about the article. Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It is NOT a FORUM. There are other places on the internet where you can talk about Hinduism in general. This is a very good site for discussion on Hinduism. You also said Should we just push our knowledge here and not learn anything? On Wikipedia, you can learn about Hinduism only by reading our articles, not by discussion. On the discussion pages, you can learn about how Wikipedia works but not about Hinduism. GizzaChat © 01:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You also said people might miss the discussion. It is not very difficult to go to WT:HNB. Just click and all non-Hinduism article related discussions are there. Thank you. GizzaChat © 01:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am personally a little light on this, I don't think that our discussions are light years away from the article. Meaning that most of them seem as though they drift — they do concern the article. Such as how conversion, idol worship and polytheism should be approached in the article. We just all have to be careful not to go too far and lose sight of what we are trying to do here, and that is work our best on the article. — Seadog_MS 01:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The topics that aren't related to the article have already been transferred by Baka in case you don't know. In the past it has been much worse. I remember once there was a discussion here about what is an Aryan. For some strange reason it wasn't on Talk:Aryan but here! GizzaChat © 01:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I remember the Aryan that in my opinion was out of place by being here. — Seadog_MS 01:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: AH! My example was not about you! You take everyting so personal. I know what an Aryan is. My complaints are not direct towards you, they are directed towards everybody, including myself (I also get carried away sometimes or start a discussion topic here not relevant). And yes Aryan is not un-related to Hinduism but What is an Aryan is not very much related to this article. On this Hinduism article, we don't have space to explain what Aryan is. We might mention that the beliefs of the Aryans form part of Hinduism but we will have a link to Aryan, if someone wants to learn more about them. GizzaChat © 01:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, to everyone (not just Swad.) you can find many more examples in the archives. Once someone wrote "please check out the Rajput article." This notice is precisely what should be on the notice board, not on this page. One complete has HeBhagawan and Swad. apologising to each other. That for example, should have been done on their user talk pages. GizzaChat © 02:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have something for Swadhyayee, Gauranga, and Bakaman at WP:HNB, if they would care to look up. Thanks. Aupmanyav 10:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Conversion, dear friend. Aupmanyav 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to all editors

message: Is this still in dispute (and if so what is the specific objection) or can we remove the NPOV tag ? I recall this issue was raised earlier but perhaps got overlooked. Abecedare 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I don't see what is disputed. I will take it down since when I brought it up it got disputed and when it has not become a topic lately. — Seadog_MS 19:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of Caste section