Talk:Hinduism/Archive 11

message: As always, I have the following problems with the introduction:
1. Hindu Dharma originated in the Indian subcontinent: Hindu Dharma has two constituents. First the indigenous beliefs (characterised by Shiva, Bhairava, Kuber, the myriad Mother Godesses, and the various avataras of Vishnu who find no mention in the Vedas). The second is the most important book in Hindu philosophy, the Veda, which according to most scholars, Indian as well as western, originated outside India. So Hindu Dharma is a mix of the indigenous philosophy and that which came from outside India.
2. Hindus believe in a supreme cosmic spirit: All hindus do not believe in such a cosmic spirit. Many (no figures, just as those also who added the cosmic spirit angle in the introduction have no figures about how many believe in a cosmic spirit). The fact is that Aryans and indigenous Hindus, through the history and presently worship many Gods which include the Aryan Indra, Surya, Agni, etc. and the indigenous Ganesha, Kartikeya, Hanuman, etc. Some people may consider that these all Gods and Godesses whose idols we find in each temple separately, whose auspicious days are celebrated separately, who are worshipped with different chants are different forms of the same cosmic spirit, but that does not compell other people to agree to agree to their views. Hinduism is clearly polytheistic also. It is unfortunate that some people remove such edits without even going into any discussion. It has happened before. A large number of hindus who believe in Advaita, the man/God difference does not make any sense, 'Purnamadah, Purnamidam, Purnat purnamudacyate; Purnasya Purnamadaya, Purnameva Vashisyate'. Who, here, now, is bent on making Hinduism in an exclusively monotheistic religion?
3. This leaves out some old philosophies and their followers like Nireeshwar Samkhya, Poorva Mimamsa, Vaisesika, and the modern science-influenced Hindus who do not believe in God/Gods, though they believe just as strongly in Indian traditions like any other theist Hindu.
I intend to make the necessary changes and invite those who may have objections to explain their views here. Aupmanyav 10:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aupmanyav, the thought of the Vedas originating outside of India is pure bakwaas.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am looking for some pundit who could satisfactorily explain to me as to why Vedas mention 1. seven suryas and the eighth, Martanda, who was born dead, 2. Navagwahs and Dashagwahs, the brahmins who would finish their satra in nine or ten months (Avesta even mentions Hapta-gu, those with seven-month year), 3. Ushas, the thirty sisters, who delayed the appearance of sun, and 4. Ati-Ratra, which was never more than a 100 days. Aupmanyav 07:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with introduction 

message: As other editors noted above, the labels Shaivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism, etc;, are somewhat artificial.  These are broad labels applied by scholars--and, I believe, originally by western scholars--more than by ordinary Hindus themselves. Many, many Hindus do not identify strongly with any particular "denomination."  They worship the same ishta devatā that their parents worshiped, and they accept the teachings of all the scriptures in a general way--but not usually in a way that is antagonistic to other denominations.  For this reason, my preference would be not to give undue attention in the main Hinduism article to the differences between the "denominations." We don't want to give the impression that a central feature of Hinduism is antagonism among denominations, becasue this is not the case. It is probably the most internally harmonious of the world's major religions. Compare Hinduism with Christianity, for example.  Most Catholics would never think of entering a Protestant church--in fact the Pope forbids it. But a Shaiva would have no problem saluting Sri Krishna in a Krishna temple. Of course, there will be some people who do not have such an inclusive attitude, but tolerance seems to be the rule in Hinduism, and intolerance is the exception.  HeBhagawan 16:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree with you. Another point is that in many Shaivist mandirs for example, there is a Vishnu murti, but it is smaller and placed in a small corner and it is the same vice versa. After all, Shiva is appears in the Vishnu Sahasranama and Vishnu is also a name in the Shiva sahasranama. The Shaiva Purans have stories abotu Shiv creating Vishnu, then Brahma. The Vaishnav Purans have stories about Vishnu creating Brahma and Shiv. Shaktas believe Mata Devi created all three. So all the main gods are still acknowledged in each denomination. It is just the order of importance which is different. GizzaChat © 22:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Seriously c'mon, the majority of Hindus really dont care whether Visnu or Siva or Murugan are on the murti. Lets not vivisect a religion. There hasnt been any "dharmayuddh" between Vaisnavites, Saivites, and Smartas, so its OR to call Hinduism a bunch of different religions.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't want to push my own beliefs but I think most Vaishnavites still believe Shiva is a minor deva and Shaivites believe Vishnu is a minor deva. The respective denominations both never claim that either Shiva or Vishnu doesn't exist. I have read Hare Krishna books which say chanting mantras like Om Namah Sivaya and the Gayatri Mantra isn't bad at all. They just believe that the Hare Krishna mantra is the best and quickest method to become one with the Paratma/Krishna, hence it is the mantra that everybody should chant. One book by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada even encouraged Christians to chant "Hare Jesus Christ!" Interestingly, most of the Hindu Wikipedians (but of course not all) leans towards Smarta/Religious pluralism beliefs. Also many Hindus sects and cults, which are never called smarta, if one logically thinks about them are smarta. Eg. Gandhism and Hindutva (it attempts to unite all Hindus). GizzaChat © 00:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on Denominations

message: Namaste, I as though there is a lot of confusion among non-Hindus, and maybe even some Hindus about the nature of our harmonious plurality of dharm. Sometimes, while reading the article, I myself get confused! Perhaps making clear the nature of this plurality would improve understanding, for those who have had little or narrow exposure. I believe if we formulate the solid core of universal to all Hindus--superceding Vaidika Parampara, we may be able to elucidate the essence.
Though I have an idea of what the core concepts are and should include, I would rather have everyone else contribute to a list, and add my own comments.
I know everyone already knows this, but I would like to reiterate that an undisputed essential of Hinduism is love, infinite love, and thus, notions of superiority of fundamentals must be excluded, and instead only pervasion must be discussed.
Also, instead of worrying about hierarchy and omissions, let us not delete any additions that are later disputed and questioned, but instead struck-through, or elucidated, with discussion in the following section.
Om Namahsivaya,
Saiva suj 20:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  True Core of Hinduism 

message: #Love :) Saiva suj 20:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essentials in the Core of Hinduism 

message: # Love is all you need :) Saiva suj 20:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of the Essentials 

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

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

message: In the introduction, the article says, "Most Hindus believe in a supreme cosmic spirit called Brahman...."  However if you follow the link to Brahman, you read that it "...is more of a general and abstract term than a theological term to describe God...."
These two seem to contradict one another.  Can someone add some clarifying text in either article?
Thanks.
No, when Hindus who believe in advaita philosophy, they believe in saguna brahman. Vaishnavites disagree and belive that Vishnu is only Brahman.
Raj2004 09:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: HeBhagawan,
Happy & Prosperous new year to you.  The family members in which a child is born do not go to temples or offer any sort of Puja for 16 days from the birth of a child.  It is known as Vrudhi Shutak, Vrudhi means increase.  You are removing this particular fact of Hinduism.  Probably, you may not be aware of this.  Why don't you ask your known monks?  I am not going to lose anything but when people from other religion find similarity, their feelings/attitude for people of other religions change.  People feel there is similarity amongst ourselves.  I came to know from someone that even Christain ladies do not go to church during days of menstruation.  Such knowledge do make us happy that similar religious taboos or care for sanctity do exist in all religions.
Swadhyayee 15:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you not find out? 

message: 31/10/2006.
Dear Freedom Skies,
Pl. bear with me for removing your edit of Hinduism. The sense or significance of your edit is un-understandable. Dharma means religion. Dharmic means religious. What is founding religion of Dharmic religions?
Swadhyayee 04:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have removed your edit of Hinduism. 

message: HeBhagawan,,
I have edited we develop good tendencies or bad tendencies to good or bad tendencies are developed in us as it is more proper.  When we say, "we develop" means we do a particular act to do so but when something develop in us due to some natural reaction, it is proper to write so and so developed in us.  Hope you will agree and won't revert the edit.
Swadhyayee 06:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We develop and developed in us. 

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

message: You may be right in the available meanings of "Ashauch" but the logic behind is gloomy or joyous mood of people. How can anyone go to The God for Darshan with gloomy face? Would anyone like gloomy face but the fact is, today everyone's face is gloomy because of one or other problem. One may say that everyone is Shutaki every day. Hope you are aware that there is always two meanings 1) translation of word and 2) "Lakshik Arth" - "Lakshik" meaning. I think the logic behind Hinduism doctrines if projected would earn due reverence for Hinduism and mitigate allegations that Hinduism is superstitious. Can't help till the people do not want to apply mind to understand some concepts strange to them. Enough of dis-advantage is being taken of citation rule.Swadhyayee 04:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But 'inability to concentrate' is your own individual interpretation of that word. It is not popularly accepted, and is therefore not "Lakshik" either, unless you mean your very own personal "Lakshik". I appreciate your desire to change the literal and popular meaning of words to something more positive. It's a beautiful idea. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means that it must define words and principles based on the popularly accepted usages of those words. Citations and references are a part of that, just as they are with any encyclopedia. A personal website or message board is the more appropriate place to promote new and more personal meanings of words. Wikipedia really isn't the place for that, unfortunately, Swadhyayee. ॐ Priyanath 04:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashauch - Priyanath. 

message: One could say for deploring Kama & Artha as lower Purusharths.  It could have been said, just to make people move to Dharma & Moksha.  Lot of Sanyasees try to deplore Kama & Artha, particularly Jain Sadhus try to create hate in the minds of people living family life.
Does one not need money to do one's religious duties or support Sanyasees or Brahmins or religious institutions?  Krishna has said in Srimad Bhagawad Geeta that "Kama" is my "Vibhuti."  In Hindu doctrines "Kama" is supported confining sexual pleasure with one's wedded spouse in the witness of fire (A form of God), Brahmin and society.  Is it possible to conquer "Kama" by any average person?  Vishwamitra also sliped.  When Krishna declared "Kama" as Krishna's "Vibhuti" who are we to deplore "Kama"?  Indian has n' number of Sanyasees.  With due respect to Swami Bhaskaranandji, I say that anything said in a particular situation or a context should not be incorporated in an article like Wikipedia which shall remain on a public forum for a long long future.  Hope everyone will see the damage being done to Hindusim and restrain from continuing with statements deploring 4 pursuits of life. Swadhyayee 14:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The opening sentence calls them "four legitimate pursuits" That phrase is repeated at the end. I don't see anything 'deploring' them at all. I wouldn't remove anything, but the second to last sentence might be just slightly edited, to say something like 'all four pursuits are seen as routes to God', or something like that. Artha, for example, when done as karma yoga, can be liberating. This article is too long to get into such specifics, but that second to last sentence could express the idea more positively - i.e., 'as a path to liberation when done rightly', rather than merely as 'intermediate stages' on the path to God. But I don't have any references! ॐ Priyanath 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: Great job - I'm all for brevity, and it reads very very well. Great editing. ॐ Priyanath 02:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kama & Artha are lower Purusharths is a wrong statement. 

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

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

message: Since you asked for an explanation, I will try to give you one. Some of your edits have been 100% good. I have not changed such edits.  But there are 2 kinds of edits I have noticed you making repeatedly which are problematic:
#Unsourced statements that are not common knowledge (even though you usually seem to think they are), and which seem POV.
#Edits that are ungrammatical and / or clearly poor stylistically.  Most often, these are objectionable because they are ungrammatical. A little bit of bad grammar would not be a problem, but you make rather a lot of edits, and rather a lot of them have this problem. You also have made many edits that do not follow the wikipedia rules of style, and are worded awkwardly and are often placed in inappropriate places in the article. When I am talking about stylistic problems, I'm not talking about minor issues that reasonable people could disagree over; I'm talking about things that almost everybody agrees are problems. Even the editors who do nothing but revert vandalism have reverted your edits for this reason. 
This is nothing I haven't said before. You asked why I ignore some of your questions. The reason is that you keep asking the same questions again and again. I can't reply every time. Also, on many occasions, I can't understand what what you are trying to say or ask.
I am aware that you may not like to hear these things, and I hope your feelings will not be hurt. But you did ask. Please try to be a little humble and think about why so many editors--not only myself--have reverted so many of your edits. Why should they revert yours and not others if they were not problematic? Instead of looking at other editors, consider whether there is something you could do differently so that there would not be so many disputes. Thank you. Note: There are many copy editors on wikipedia who would probably be willing to help you formulate your paragraphs before inserting them into articles. Or you can always ask the editors here for suggestions. You have some good ideas, you just need to polish your wording and get some references before inserting some of them. I have frequently edited in a Word document before posting in the article, and it works very well. HeBhagawan 17:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Swadhyayee''', 

message: Priyanath,
As I studied British Grammar, "on" can be used while a physical object is put on another physical object and "upon" should be used while an abstract thing has to be placed upon another thing.  Although "on" is widely used in place of upon.  I tried to change "on" to "upon" while editing projection upon God. What should be used "upon" or "on"?Swadhyayee 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Swadhyayee - Of the edits you recently made, that were all reverted by Sfacets, the 'on' to 'upon' one is the only one in which I think you might be right. But I would defer to people with a better understanding of English than myself. Please see my response on my talk page, User_talk:Priyanath, to your other questions about your issues here. ॐ Priyanath 05:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  on and upon. 

message: Thanks Priyanath for your views.
I changed Brahman as in nearly 7 lines para, the word God appeared six times. In most of the case the sentence beginned with the word "God". Whether you agree or not, it does not project good English. If you try to re-read my edits with bit more positive view, hopefully, you will agree that the same was desirable as the extensive use of word "God" was done away with.
There was no rational for projecting fatherhood or motherhood upon God in the earlier writing. I believe, almost all believe that God provides and take our care so it becomes a matter of general knowledge. This sort of boards appear to have been prepared by Christains are seen on doors here in India. This was added to already existing matter and so I feel it could be understood in proper context by readers. My edits provided logic for projecting fatherhood and motherhood upon God. The moment an animate (human or animal) is born, it's care is taken by it's birth giver. The milk is produced in the breasts just a month or two before the offspring is born.  The breasts dry when the offspring either learn to prey or child start getting teeth. Isn't it a proof of "God provides".
Regarding, worshiping God, human is imperfect where as God is projected as perfect. The virtues a human desire to imbibe can not be seen in one's Guru even. Whereas one can find the possibility of imbibing most difficult virtues from The God as God (deity) is seen possessing all virtues.
Well, if, you see I was right in use of "upon", I could also be right in so many other things, it's a matter of present knowledge of subject matter of the viewer and efforts to understand.
If, there is punctuation error, it could be corrected by any one. It's no reason to tell anyone that one's English is poor and damaging the overall meaning of an article. I am not able to understand a great deal of article Hinduism even matter of a para which I edit. I just try to give more understanding by my edits. I do not remove or touch a thing which I do not understand as I feel, I do not have the knowledge of subject matter.
God is not only beyond description but beyond perception too. My such edit is also removed. Isn't it an attempt to stick to individual limited knowledge?
In universe, there are three stages of any existence 1) Birth 2) Decay and 3) Death. "Janma, Jara and Mrutyu" God is an exception. So decay has to have a place with change though the word "change" may be covering "decay" as "decay" is the word used by Shashtras.
One place the article was carrying word "entirely accurate". I changed it to accurate as "accurate" does not need adj. entirely. Was the earlier edit right? Was it not a poor grammar or English? Did I make any comment that it was poor English? Did I ever make such comment?
My feeling is "beyond description" is much better than "can not be described" but yet old edits will stay by reverting my edits.
I am not seeing sense in "God's less abstract personal form". Is improving and brevity not needed there?
I am not seeing sense here too: According to the monotheistic and pantheistic theologies of Hinduism, God is, in the highest sense, One: formless, infinite, and eternal. God is changeless and is the very source of consciousness.
What was wrong in my edit "According to the monotheistic and pantheistic theologies of Hinduism, God is formless, infinite, and eternal. God is not subject to change and decay. God is the very source of consciousness. God is beyond time, space, perception and causation and yet permeates everything and every being."
To me "God is source of consciousness is wrong"; I believe it is more right to say that "consciousness is God". If you project God to be Nirgun and Nirakar, how could God be source of consciousness? The God can be felt as consciousness, fire, water, Jnan and so many other things.
Wikipedia policy clearly says not to discourage new editors as they could be assets to Wikipedia. Who knows who will serve Wikipedia longer? No one has right to make incivil comments. The comments of HeBhagawan while I edited for the first time were grossly incivil followed by Apandey. I have strong feeling that Apandey and HeBhagawan are one. You see, HeBhagawan's recent post to Apandey on Apandey's talk page inviting him, inspite of Apandey having involved in incivility against me which complicates issues. You see HeBhagawan having awarded Apandey for contributing to Hinduism and behaving decently. What is Apandey's contribution to Hinduism? Can you check his incivil comments against me on talk page of "Hinduism"? What could be the impression of HeBhagawan while he is awarding without merits?
All this I wrote to you so that things improve and editors get refined along with article.
With my due apology for long post.
Swadhyayee 06:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks Priyanath for your views. 

message: In Devas section there is a mention of Ganesha.  Ganesha is popularly known as Ganapati.  Ganesha is known as Vighnaharta (removal of obstacles).  Ganesha is accepted as Vighnaharta and Ganesha Puja is beginning of any auspicious events including Yagnas.  The story is, when his head was sever and replaced by elephant head by Shiva, Ganesha was promised that he will be worshiped 1st in any occasion.  Lokmanya Tilak mooted and started the idea of Sarvajanik Ganesh Puja to bring people close and decide strategy to fight against Britishers.  Can we incorporate anything more about Ganesha, looking at Ganesha's significance amongst Hindus? Swadhyayee 09:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with HeBhagawan once again, please do not refer to God as it. In school we usually get in trouble for refering to anything as it, so please don't refer to God as it in this article.--18:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganesha 

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

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

message: Isn't God beyond perception? and this is a significant experience of sages. Shashtras say that there are 3 stages of any existence, 1) Birth (Janma) 2) Decay (Jara) and 3) Death (Mrutyu).
Why God is beyond perception a POV?
According to the monotheistic and pantheistic theologies of Hinduism, God is, in the highest sense, One: beyond form, infinite, and eternal. God is changeless and is the very source of consciousness. God is beyond time, space, and causation and yet permeates everything and every being. God is beyond gender.
I am not understanding the need to write "God is, in the highest sense, One: beyond form, infinite, and eternal". The para of 7 lines had use of God six times and quiet more sentences beginned with the word "God", so I felt it to make a compound sentence to reduce frequent use of the word "God".
Which is proper, "God is beyond gender" or "God is genderless"?
The belief that God provides and cares for me tends human to project human's similar relations - mother and/or father upon God.
Does the current edit provide rational for projecting fatherhood and motherhood upon God? Without stating rational, will it not be seen as idiotic or superstitious who attack Hindus for having crores of Devatas?
Hindus worship these personal forms of God for a practical reason: it is easier to cultivate devotion to a personal being than to an abstract principle.
Where is the rational? What was wrong in, human mind needs an object to concentrate and so it is easy to cultivate devotion to The God in human form than to an abstract entity. Worshiping God in human form help in seeing the possibility of sublimating an individual to The God's state - imbibe sublimated virtues of God within one's self.?
Do you think spending some more time while editing would have done me and the article some justice?
Swadhyayee 04:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a small note - to say that God is genderless is saying that God has something less than us, which would surely be incorrect, whereas to say that God is 'beyond gender' sounds more appropriate from my perspective. The same with formless and 'beyond form'. Ys, GourangaUK 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For consideration: 

message: I have observed that the history of edits show certain edits done by a person while comparing with previous version but it is not so.  If you make one edit, the history is showing more than one including done by someone else.  This is confusing and irritating against a wrong person.
Swadhyayee 07:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of edits. 

message: Would it look better if Hinduism logo and links come on left hand side so as to fit the initial text on right sight; allowing one section utilise entire breadth and than placing "contents" on right hand side to enable more breadth for the text?  If so done the narrow format of "core concept" text would be changed and fit in to better breadth.
Swadhyayee 11:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about shifting? 

message: Wait Priyanath, there is some problem or confusion with the software of edits. Few hours ago only, I have posed this problem on talk page of Hinduism. The edits which you are referring to as mine are not done by me. Whenever you pick up a particular edit from history, it shows previous edits in red ink, making one to believe that the edits have been done by the last person.
If there is any vandal, I might use pop-up and put to previous edit. In the process, because may change to becuase but as far as I remember, such thing has also not taken place.
Regarding "place and area", I have put my comments on either talk page of HeBhagawan or Hinduism. Pl. go through it.
I don't think, I have ever changed devotee bringing food, a Guru may also give..., I have not changed any ref.,
If, you are online, kindly immediately confirm and report the software fault as I do not know how to lodge the complaint.
Swadhyayee 17:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History edit software problem ? 

message: Priyanath, Here is a summary of what I did and what not. As far as possible, I did not use pop-up but manually changed the text. I am also shocked to see this history. I tried to revert a vandal today and my pop-up did not respond three to four times at least two times today.
I do not know how it happened. Could be software problem? Could you pl. check and give your observations?
Edits being shown having been done by me at 1.50am, 1.51am & 1.55am of 4 Nov. 06.
I could have done.
1) the kind of birth they will get in the future (1.50am)
2) the kind of birth (body) (1.51am)
3) make provision of seperate place in house (1.55am)
I might have done earlier, not today morning.1) room, or part of a room, (1.50am)
I have not done.1) observant (1.50am)
2) visiting the temple (1.50am)
3) The guru may also give the student (1.50am)
4) becasue (1.50am)
5) as much as possible (1.50am)
6) name="isbn1884852025-107"> (1.50am).
7) what kind of people they will become (1.55am)
Swadhyayee 17:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits I did and have not done. 

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

message: HeBhagawan,
The book which I mentioned yesterday could be "Sagunopasana" or "Murtipuja".  If you get it from choice of your author it's fine otherwise this book is compiled from discourses of Pandurang Shashtri.  Mind needs object to concentrate should be a subject of psycology.
Swadhyayee 01:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The book which I mentioned yesterday could be "Sagunopasana" or "Murtipuja" 

message: Sir, (Not)worthadonkey, with your due apology, I am reverting your edits from Hinduism. Though, appealing and appreciatable it will meet lot of objections. Pl. place your matter on talk page for discussion before including in the article.
Once again apologising for removal of your edit.
Swadhyayee 04:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sir, (Not)worthadonkey, with your due apology, I am reverting your edits from Hinduism. 

message: Core Concepts:
all share some traits in common with Hinduism,
 
Could it be written as: "all share common traits with Hinduism" or "all share some traits common with Hinduism"?
2) "Karma means good actions" is written in core concepts.  Karma means action or deeds or good actions ? Swadhyayee 10:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we must remember that this article is read by Hindu's and Non-Hindus alike. With that being said the text needs to make sense to both groups of people. If anyone can think of the best way you should do it now.-_Arjun 16:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should it be corrected? 

message: This article has become horribly bad, from the good pieces of information it used to have to just oceans of mindless ramblings, and Aupmanyav's many-gods nausea. I will have to correct/rewrite many, many things soon. The article is ABSOLUTELY unencyclopedic. It seems as if some Hindu dharma-guru back in India is delivering sermons. The article is meant for the entire world, not just a couple of villages back in India. I am very sure that where I am now, in the United States, no one will be able to understand a single concept expressed here. I have actually little problem with the content, but much more with the unencyclopedic style. No wonder it is been rejected like an ugly maid. Cygnus_hansa 16:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very funny, Cygnus_Hansa, America converted you to one God so quickly and leave all your Vedic and indigenous Hindu traditions? Aupmanyav 17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horribly bad 

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

message: Everybody,
When you look at the very first sentence of the article, does the devanagari spelling of "Hindu dharm" appear misspelled?  It might just be due to the settings on my computer, but in the word "Hindu" the "i" appears in the wrong place. HeBhagawan 17:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion this is very important in Hinduism, yes the length is pushing it but it is important. But there are to much headings, if you can find a way to incorperate it elsewhere in the article than please do so.--Arjun 23:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Devanagari

message: Thanks I am back for the kindness of Shell Kinney.
swadhyayee 10:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks I am back for the kindness of Shell Kinney. 

message: Apologies.  I have removed two paragraphs from caste system as I feel it's not in line with the subject of the article.  Looks bit foreign.  It's result of prejudices.  Shudras were considered to be fit for assisting other communities and the very nature of their work made other castes like Brahmins and Vaishyas superior.  I think, superiority or inferiority is not supported by Hindu doctrines.  Kshatriyas being warriors commanded a special respect.  I think, if we exclude this, the article is not going to suffer but help in avoiding controversies, anti-Hindu attacks and help to reduce the size.  swadhyayee 12:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am showing my presence by removing without discussion.  We should discuss. 

message: Dear Swadhyayee,
Everybody has been making an effort not to make any major changes to the article without discussing them first. Please try to do the same.  I am open to changing the varna section to make it shorter. However, the current length is the product of laborious collaborative efforts between editors, and a careful attempt to present both sides in the debate. If we can do this effectively in fewer words, or in a more neutral way, I am in favor. But one thing you cut out of the section is the very reason caste is controversial. It is controversial because in today's society, some castes are treated with discrimination, as though they were less important. Without mentioning the reason for the controversy, the rest of the section becomes meaningless.
You also removed the important point that the Indian government has taken steps to attempt to remedy caste discrimination, which I think is important.
The problem with controversy in wikipedia articles is when an article is inappropriately biased in favor of one side or the other. That may be the case with the section on caste--if so we should work on removing the bias. But it is not inappropriate to note that a controversy exists, and to point out the reasons for the controversy and the arguments of both sides.
Again, I'm open to rewording the section, but please don't remove entire paragraphs--especially ones that contain multiple citations--without FIRST discussing it. I thought we had already come to an understanding about this--hence my posting of the Monasticism section on this page for two days before incorporating it into the article. Thank you.  HeBhagawan 13:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Swadhyayee, welcome back! I'm very happy that your block was removed. Regarding changes in the Hinduism article: we've had a very good spell of cooperation here. That means discussing major changes first. You can see above that I suggested changes here on the talk page and waited for a response. Others also have shown the grace and humility to do the same. I hope you can learn this way of working together. It's much more fun and satisfying than always fighting. I support others here who revert major changes that are made without discussion, and will do the reverting myself as I see fit. The section may need some minor changes, but it currently presents fairly and in a non-POV manner the abuses of the caste system. “Fools argue; wise men discuss.” I believe you are wise. ॐ Priyanath 15:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please do not show your presence in this way

message: This article sounds in some places like it is from the 60's. Do all Hindu's really believe in Brahman? I seriously doubt that this is a universal concept, particularly once one leaves the comfort and relative uniformity of upper-caste Hinduism and goes to the village level, where beliefs are almost infinite in diversity. 
This article needs to be overhauled to represent the true diversity of Hinduism, not just the Brahminical experience. I am certainly not expecting anyone to document all of the beliefs of the Indian sub-continent, but the degree of variance should be acknowledged and explored.
Dear Mr. unsigned person,
Most of us are in favor of making the article as inclusive as possible, as you suggest, while trying to keep it clear and not so complicated that nobody can understand it. Thanks for the suggestion. If you have any specific ideas please feel free to share. HeBhagawan 01:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some nice info but... 

message: Swadhyayee and Priya,
Thank you for numbering your comments. That makes them easier to understand and to reply to. I'll comment when I can. I'm glad to see some others providing their comments as well. HeBhagawan 04:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you for numbering your comments, and more on caste

message: Before voting, please give people a little time to place their proposed wordings in the section above. If you do not like any of the versions, you may add your own proposed version above. Thanks to everybody for participating in the discussion in a civil and cooperative manner! HeBhagawan 13:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes on the above proposals for