Talk:Bhagavad Gita/Archive 1

message: The following is going to go out:
:"In modern day world there are tons of interpretation of Gita, none of them are quite authentic or have any indepth philosophical meaning. Reason behind is insufficient grasp of the same by authors."
This sounds like a comment by someone who thinks his guru's version is the only authoritative version, and the rest are the work of mental speculators and all sorts of "unauthorized" folk. While people are entitled to the opinion, it really has no place in an encyclopaedia entry. Vide "Bhagavad Gita AS IT IS". Raga 19:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing sectarian biases 

message: This is a great article, informative and everything... but it doesn't sound like an encyclopedia. 
"For its religious depth, quintessential Upanishadic and Yogic philosophy and beauty of verse, the Bhagavad Gita is one of the most compelling and important texts to come out of the Hindu tradition. Indeed, it stands tall among the world's greatest religious and spiritual scriptures."
That sounds good and dramatic, but a bit too dramatic for an encyclopedia. I'm not sure how to appropriatly fix this problem, or if it's a problem at all; but maybe someone could alter it a bit?
why
:It didn't seem excessive to me.  Is any of it controversial? 24.10.180.127 07:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  doesn't sound right. 

message: "It is the only religious text known to have been spoken by God or an incarnation/avatar of God and not by a messenger or Messiah of God."
Shouldn't that be "the only Hindu text", since Jesus' words are considered those of God by Christians? And I'm not sure that the distinction between God and Messiah makes sense in a inter-religious context, if it does at all. --Goethean 15:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Jesus is supposed to be the son of God. Spundun 05:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: The fact that it is the only Hindu scripture to have been dictated by an avatar is not very notable, and quite possibly false. I have therefore removed the sentence. --goethean ॐ 20:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Bhagavad gita is a gift to HumanKind. It never says it is for Hindus. None of ancient books in India mentions the word "Hindu". The word is foreign to Hindus themselves. What a pity
------
The article quotes the BG extensively without mentioning which translation is used. I hope that this information can be added soon, because I notices that the different translation differ quite much. Thanks. Andries 21:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About: The only text spoken by God. 

message: Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement Drive 

message: I have modified the changes by GouranaUK. The ref to the Hindu Bible is unwarranted since this is not an article on comparative religion. I think the Gita can stand on its own even in the Western world, without support from the Bible. The ref. to the basic gist of the conversation btw Krishna and Arjun is very important from an introductory contextual viewpoint. Hence reintroduced
Pizzadeliveryboy 18:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point on the 'Hindu Bible' reference. I was trying to give a feeling for the Gita's significance to anyone unfamiliar with it, but it's not essential. I've changed the line about Krishna's Divine form to be more in line with the events in chapter 11.
GourangaUK 16:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GourangaUK's edits 

message: please see Grammatical meaning of the word Bhāgvad Gitā for details.
Pizzadeliveryboy 13:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  meaning of the word 

message: I think it's important that each quote on the page from the Bhagavad-gita, should state what translation it is from. If someone came and read the page, they could get a weird idea of the philisophy explained if it isn't clear that certain quotes come from certain versions of the Bhagavad-gita.. thoughts? Dwayne Kirkwood 23:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the exact details of the book, author for few quotes, few of them are taken from the net, and can be easily verified by the links provided next to them. --vineeth 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stating the Bhagavad-gita translation 

message: in Section 1 Background, It would't be right to say that "Gita's war theory is a just war comparable to St. Augustine theory of just war, but different from Jihad or Crusade or other politically aggressive wars". Implying Jihad to be an unjust war can only be a personal opinion.
:yes you are right, i am deleting those lines. --vineeth 05:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  implying that Jihad is an unjust war 

message: I wonder why the page was moved from Bhagavad Gita to The Bhagavad Gita. The articles Bible and Qur'an don't have a definite article in their titles. Therefore I suggest to move the page back to its original location. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel the same way - otherwise we'll have loads of wiki articles all starting with 'The'. It makes no sense. GourangaUK 19:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've moved it back but the history didn't come across - any ideas? GourangaUK 19:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Could you please also move the talk page? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: I'm tempted to agree with Dwayne. - Cribananda 22:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a definition from a Sanskrit dictionary:  deeptrivia (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I still don't see how "Song of God" or "Song of the blessed one" or "Lord's Song" are so different in meaning that saying one over the other would reflect the translator's Sanskrit incompetence. After all, the essence is about the same and that is what counts. I would go with:
 It is loosely translated into English as "Song of God" or "Song of the Divine"
without a huge loss in meaning. 
- Cribananda 00:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Heliodorus is bhagavata, that's different. Sorry about that. deeptrivia (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "of the divine/holy one" is fair; according to MW,  bhagavant- means "glorious, illustrious, divine, adorable, venerable", or "holy" (applied to gods, demigods, and saints), or "the divine or adorable one", a name of Vishnu-Krishna. We are clearly looking at the latter case, i.e. the term is here an epitheton, not a simple adjective. dab (ᛏ) 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Bachmann, I am in total agreement with you. ;-) GourangaUK 15:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song of Bhagwan vs.Song of God 

message: I added a move template to this talk page. The article itself was moved a little while ago, but the talk page wasn't. ----Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move talk page 

message: I've removed the link to "Sowmya's Real Bhagavad Gita Site" because of its use of copyrighted artwork on its "Home" and "Discourses" page. (See the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works.) 
If you're the owner of the page and you want to keep using that artwork, please get in touch with the copyright owner, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, and work something out. 
Respectfully, O Govinda 12:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link to "Real Bhagavad Gita" site 

message: Per standards, the opening sentence needs to be reworked.  It doesn't say what it is, whether it be a sacred book of scripture or a handbook of somekind.  Right now it reads:
:The Bhagavad Gita (Sanskrit: भगवद् गीता - Bhagavad Gītā) comprises eighteen chapters totaling 701 ...
I'm sure it's clear to those familiar with the subject, but mysterious to those outside "the know."  The information currently in the first sentence can go in the new second sentence.  I'd do it myself, but I'm not in "the know." — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, much better.  Thanks to whoever did the edit(s). :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence not clear 

message: In the section entitled "Scripture of Yoga" there is this sentence: "Yoga's aim (nirvana or moksha) is to escape from the cycle of reincarnation through realization of the ultimate reality." Nirvana is not a vedic or hindu or yogic concept, it is a buddhist concept. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana. So I am removing it.   Shiva das 23:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cf. Bhagavadgita 2:72. ==== —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.167.162.42 (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase 'Brahma-nirvanam' is used four times within the Gita (including verse 2.72 as mentioned above). See 'nirvanam'. This may be an argument for it's re-inclusion in the article? Regards,Gouranga(UK) 11:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word nirvana should not be used 

message: I am trying to change the Raja Yoga description under Bhagvad Geeta to read as "origin of the nose" instead of "tip of the nose". I believe the word from Bhagvad Geeta is 'Nasikagram'. Which means the beginning of the nose (i.e. its origin) and incorrectly translated by many as the tip of the nose. The origin of the nose is the location of the Ajna chakra (third eye). I have developed this understanding from the following extract from Autobiography of a Yogi - Paramhamsa Yogaananda chapter 16
"Fix one's vision on the end of the nose." This inaccurate interpretation of a Bhagavad Gita stanza,7 widely accepted by Eastern pundits and Western translators, used to arouse Master's droll criticism.
"The path of a yogi is singular enough as it is," he remarked. "Why counsel him that he must also make himself cross-eyed? The true meaning of nasikagram is 'origin of the nose, not 'end of the nose.' The nose begins at the point between the two eyebrows, the seat of spiritual vision."
I believe it would be a great error to mis-translate a text of such immense stature. Many people will be misled by an incorrect translation and would be led astray on their quest. I too had followed the translation most popularly made, which requires the concentration on the tip of the nose. But under my Guru's guidance I learnt that the attention should be fixed at the Ajna chakra (the seat of Soul Wisdom) or the third eye. If you are averse to changing the translation, in the interest of allowing all views to be expressed, we should mutually agree to post it as an alternate translation in parenthesis alongside the original.
Gyanesh75
:Hello Gyanesh and thankyou for your input. Please feel free to add this alternate translation into the article if you wish, but without changing the quotation that is already there. Wikipedia is not here to decide which translation is an 'error' and which is 'correct' - It's an encyclopedia. Best Wishes, ys GourangaUK 08:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've since added the reference and link to the article. Regards, GourangaUK 12:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raj Yoga 

message: Some material on the Gita are not available online and have copyrights
associated with them. Any objection (or Wikipedia policy) about adding 
a section of bibliography entries?  For instance I would like to 
add the Title, Author, ISBN#, publisher of the Barbara Stoller-Miller
translation as well as the Sargent Sanscrit/English interliner translation
among others.  What say?
:I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say.  If you're asking about adding a section for a list of translations of the Gita that don't appear online, I'm all for the idea. Sayvandelay 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Bibliographic Entries OK? 

message: In regards to recent edits, yes Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita "the four divisions of human society are created by Me" B-Gita 4.13, but then as the creator, surely Krishna is beyond such divisions himself, being  "transcendental to this system of the four divisions of human society". It seems largely irrelevant to mention this in the introduction, although Arjun's role as a warrior is obviously essential to the understanding of the situation on the battlefield. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 11:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since then I have added "Krishna explains to Arjuna his duties as a famous warrior and Prince" in order to explain Arjuna's social position. It seems irrelevant to identify Krishna and Arjuna with specific caste labels in the introduction. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Krishna born is a Yadava Kula so he also took birth as per our holy Hindu texts. Caste is a wrong interpretation of Varnas Hindushudra 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arjuna was a warrior so Kshtriya and Krishna a Shudra Hindushudra 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Mahabharata and Bhagavata Purana Krishna took birth in a Vaisya family (cow-herds). But either way, how is that of relevance to introductory discussions of the Bhagavad Gita? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 13:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four Varnas 

message: Currently the background section reads more like an overview, so much so that i'm tempted to change the title. A real background should explain more on the events before hand, the relationship between Krishna and Arjun, some background on the war, etc. Can someone more knowledgable perhaps expand on this idea? Chopper Dave 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - I'll see if I can put something together as a start point. Have made a few general alterations today, but the background section will take some brain time. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 16:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background is lacking 

message: It is about Robert Oppenheimer and the influence of Bhagavad-Gita The Gita of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Proceedings of American Philosophical Society, Published 2000
:Austerlitz 88.72.24.8 12:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz 88.72.14.143 18:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put this on the mainpage? 

message: By all means this is a good article, however I think that further detail on specific chapters... is needed. Although there a lot on the forms of Yoga... is stated, a summary of  each of the Chapters individually would be excellent - considering the Bhagavad Gita to probably be one of the most famous Smriti texts. Although there are good links to translations given, it would be great if the Wikipedia article as well could be even more detailed Bhaveer 04:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on this page? 

message: Can anyone find Sir Edwin Arnold's translation on audio to add. I don't think people generally prefer to download stuff from the internet so please stay clear of that if you can. -I'm Working for Him 17:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio 

message: I noticed that the article has not got many references to books, which perhaps is why there was no setup of a References section per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout.  I have added that standard section and would like to suggest that we adjust the formatting of some of the citations that refer to books to use one of the book templates.  I have added one as a sample. It might be interesting to try to polish things up a bit, and perhaps have a copyeditor look at it. Buddhipriya 04:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of references 

message: I added a section explaining the traditional "18 yogas" business.  If additional citations are need to prove that this exists, let me know, but it can be seen by looking through any Sanskrit copy of the text.  I suspect that lack of familiarity with this system is due to the wide variation in English translations, so I gave a few examples of how the source Sanskrit sometimes winds up being unrecognizable in English tranlations. Buddhipriya 05:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Buddhipriya - I'm wondering if the chapter titles are included in the original Sanskrit, or if they are simply add-ons by certain translators at a later date? Surely they have been included to assist in clarifying what is being said within certain sections rather than being part of the original conversation? If this is the case then to describe them as traditional Hindu editions of the Gita seems innapropriate - for me what is classed as 'traditional Hinduism' varies largely depending on the eye of the beholder. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the titles were added as part of the development of the Gita as a separate work.  I have been trying to find a citation regarding that, but am still looking.  The titles do not appear in the text of the source as given in the Mahabharata.  Instead of traditional Hindu perhaps Sanskrit edtions would be more accurate, as the do appear almost universally in the Sanskrit edtions I have.  Some of the native commentators such as Sivananda elaborate on the sequence of the eighteen chapters as representing progressive or complementary yogas, etc.  I have just double-checked the Sanskrit source as it appears in the Mahabharata and the titles do not appear there, so I will add that fact.  I guess we could provide a citation to the full text source for the critical edition of the MBH, but I do not want to be accused of WP:OR.   Buddhipriya 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 18 yogas 

message: At the moment, the article suggests the Gita is entirely focused on Yoga which I don't think is the case. I remember that other philosophical concepts discussed include (theistic) Saṃkhya and Vedanta, which is obviously related to Yoga. I personally have only translated/read Chapter 3, which is about Krishna saying enjoying the fruits (phala) of one's actions does not imply inaction, which is why Arjun still should fulfil his dharma (duty). The text also discusses other philosophical concepts which are not expressed overtly in the article like reincarnation (though it is briefly mentioned in some Yoga sections) GizzaChat © 22:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article could be expanded to add some of the other major themes that are in there.  Currently the article has got good coverage for the concept of bhakti, which reflects the sourcing on the article up to this point.  There is a completely different spin on the Gita which addresses its role as a revolutionary tipping point in attitudes about Vedic teachings, placing less emphasis on Vedic ritual practices.  I assume you are familiar with the "18 yogas" system, since you have read the Sanskrit sources.  Some of the key chapters that could be expanded upon in my view include:
*Chapter 18: Moksha Sanyasa Yoga: the bottom line for the Gita in some ways appears at the end, with the concept of Tyaga ("throwing down") and its relationship to Sanyasa (taking of vows, chiefly).  The distinction between these ideas appears often preceeding this but peaks in chapter 18.
*Chapter 3: Karma Yoga is connected to traditional ideas about the function of Yagna, which are part of the neo-Vedic redifinition of terms that is done in the Gita.
*Chapter 14: Gunatraya Vibhaga Yoga. Illustrates how the Gita picks up common ideas such as the three gunas and develops them for this context.
Etc. Buddhipriya 22:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, I have a couple of India/Hindu commentaries of the Gita and only some photocopied sheets of introductory notes from the Western/Academic perspective. It's been a long time since I last read them and unfortunately won't have the time in the near future. Like I have been for the past six months, all I will do probably hang around and comment on the talk page while you guys are actively involved! To be honest, I have very little knowledge outside Chapter 3. on Karma Yoga and a bit on Ch.2, which I learnt as contextual/background information for Ch.3. GizzaChat © 23:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By working together and pooling our resources I am sure we can all make improvements.  We can provide commentaries by the carload if need be. :) This article deserves our very best work from as many editors as possible to ensure we cover all the angles well.  Just watching to see if changes make any sense is a big help. Buddhipriya 00:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content/Concepts discussed 

message: I just noticed the following sentence which is sourced from the Himalayan Academy web site: "A minority of Hindus, belonging to some Saivite sects, reject the Gita's authority. (reference given for this: A spokesman for this point of view was the late Saivite guru Subramuniyaswami." ).  I believe this statement reflects a WP:FRINGE viewpoint and I do not think it is worth mentioning in the article.  A different bit of unreliable and non-notable bit of trivia was just removed from the page on Ganesha where agreement was reached that the source is dubious.  Subramuniya's book claiming that "Lemurian scrolls" support his belief that human origins can be traced to space travel to Earth from the Pleiades millions of years ago brings him into question as a WP:RS. See: .  Would it be okay to remove this dubious bit of trivia?  Buddhipriya 20:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had weakened that statement a long time ago. Before it said "all Saivite and Shakta sects," which was absolutely absurd. I agree with the source not being authorative of course. What he claims is the point of view of one sub-sect only and hence is too minor for inclusion. GizzaChat © 07:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is at least some consensus for this, I have deleted the sentence from the article.  If someone wants to make a case for inclusion of materials from this source, please chime in. Buddhipriya 16:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious use of Himalayan Academy web site 

message: The article now has two unsourced bits of non-notable trivia in the section on Influence beyond India.  According to WP:TRIVIA all such trivia must meet the usual guidlines for inclusion on Wikipedia.  I do not find these examples notable and have fact tagged them.  If someone thinks they should remain in the article would you please cite them or explain their relevance?  I may be missing something, as I often do. Buddhipriya 21:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has replied to this question regarding trivia.  Unless someone objects, I would like to remove items from the trivia section that are not sourced and which do not seem notable.  Is there any concern about this? Buddhipriya 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they do any harm to the article, but would not object to their removal as they don't really add that much either. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 11:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you did not object to their removal, I have taken out the two non-notable trivia items in line with my understanding of WP:TRIVIA. Buddhipriya 16:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia in the influence section 

message: Currently the only reference to commentaries is under the section on translations.  I propose that a new section be started for "Commentaries" so that an overview of the variety of these can be given.  Note that the great commentaries in India were not translations, as they were also written in Sanskrt. Buddhipriya 22:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentaries versus translations 

message: Another editor placed a picture of the cover of the Prabhupada commentary on the page, and I have removed the image because I believe it could be considered promotion of that commentary.  Until I added the section on commentators, the page was entirely sourced by links to the web site for that Prabhupada commentary.  I still feel that the article gives undue weight to his opinions on what the Gita means.  I mention this because I want any personal bias of mine to be clearly disclosed.  How do other editors feel about this issue? Buddhipriya 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we could well do without the ubiquitous ISKCON illustrations if we had some historical artwork to show. It doesn't need to be medieval, a painting a 100 years old will suffice. This would have the advantage to add art historical value at the same time. Unfortunately, I find it extremely difficult to locate Indian historical artwork with source identification on the internet. There are countless devotional websites carelessly plastered with artwork, but somehow the merit of identifying the images you are using does not to seem to be  recognized widely in these circles. dab (𒁳) 08:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: here   I found two rather nice "vishvarupa" images with a traditional look, but I have no idea how to identify them or if they are older than a 100 years. dab (𒁳) 08:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bhagavad Gita As It Is 

message: I object to the removal of sourced content related to dating of the text and war.  This was done with no prior discussion.  I have reverted the section to the state it was in the last time we debated this matter. Here is the removal I object to:  That edit removed two sourced citations, one to Keay, and one to Basham. I understand that there may be redundance between these articles, but removal only of the academic dating is not appropriate.  Either all the dating should go, or the balanced academic material needs to remain to offset the religious dating. I would support removal of the entire section with a pointer left to the article on the Mahabharata war if redundancy is considered to be a problem. Buddhipriya 03:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The traditional religious dating should be included due to the nature of the Bhagavad-Gita as a religious text - I would strongly disagree with the entire section being removed. Gouranga(UK) 09:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sourced content 

message: *Eliminate all citation tags which have been there since July 2007.</a>
: I added 2 refs.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: changed ? to . IMO the statement is right. Correct me if i am wrong.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This one came up in a microsoft word spell check for a change that it didn't require the question mark.SriMesh | talk 00:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The variations of ", and" & "(no comma) and" are in quotes too. Do i change it?????--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave quotations as quoted from original sourceSriMesh | talk 00:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Done. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Used "to illustrate an article discussing the book (Bhagavad-Gita) in question"  --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Split sentence.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The Scripture of Yoga lead is a summary of the subsections ahead. Please add  tags, where refs are needed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Done.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Changed this reference at Footnote 54 to citation templates style reference rather than just a reference and a URL.  This would be best for the other web pages as well.SriMesh | talk 01:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The book of Radhakrishnan is cited: "verse 47, Chapter 2-Samkhya theory and Yoga practise, The Bhagavadgita - Radhakrishnan", not the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Done. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Done. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I dont see the symbols in the headings.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment wants the sentence with is considered re-worded to not contain...is considered. ie this one...It is considered by many as one of the world's greatest religious and spiritual scriptures.SriMesh | talk 01:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In the same light as above...Use the control F feature to find the word some re-word the sentence without the word some.  Continue with the other terms mentioned above.SriMesh | talk 01:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This is an awesome fix to the references.  Thank you.  SriMesh | talk 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Review removed from hold and passed