User talk:Priyanath/Archive 2

May I request you to give your opinion about my recent edits to Hinduism is better or not?

Another thing, the discussion with HeBhagawan becomes uglier over meritorious. I feel embarrassed of discussing things not meritorious for working improvement in an article. No body has so far claimed that they don't understand my English or my English is full of grammatical errors. I have been drafting petitions and have never come across such comments.Swadhyayee 03:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Swadhyayee, I noticed that your recent edits were reverted by Sfacets. I believe he was right in reverting them. I agree with one or two of the edits you made. But for the most part, your phrasing and wording made the concepts much less clear, rather than more clear. There were several grammar and punctuation errors also, to such an extent that Sfacets assumed it was POV pushing. Sfacets is a very good editor, with a very good understanding of language and writing. I would have reverted the edits also, probably without looking at every single one, just because their overall effect was to make the Brahman section much less understandable. That Brahman section, for the most part, is very well written. I imagine it was crafted over time by several editors, refining and tweaking it. Your English writing really does need some work, Swadhyayee. I know your intention is good, but by repeatedly using your 'elbow' as you said in one post, and making ungrammatical and unclear edits, you're trying the patience of other editors - including editors who I consider to be very patient people - like HeBhagavan. Please, consider the advice of others here - post your edits for discussion before making them.

Just a couple of examples. You wrote "The belief that God provides and cares for me tends human to project human's similar relations - mother and/or father upon God." If I didn't already know what was previously written in the article, I wouldn't have any idea what you were trying to say. It was clearly written before. Why did you have to change that? Another example, you wrote "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." I have no idea what you mean with that statement.

The one grammar issue that you actually asked about at Talk:Hinduism, regarding 'on' or 'upon', you may well be right. That's the one edit in your batch of edits that I believe to be correct - but I'm not sure, so I would do what you did (unfortunately after the fact) and post it on the talk page to get people's reactions. Please, if you want to make changes, put them on the talk page first.

I have a great deal of respect for what HeBhagavan has done for the Hinduism article. The article is much much better because of his work: better writing, clearer writing, balanced, and concise. I also have seen that he is very patient and willing to listen to others' points of view. But you have tried his patience to no end. If he's shown impatience with you, I really can't blame him. In fact, he is one of the more patient and kindly editors I've run across on Wikipedia.

There is much good will here, Swadhyayee. Please consider listening to the good, and well-intentioned advice that editors like HeBhagavan have to offer. ॐ Priyanath 05:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Hi Swadhyayee, I believe the Hinduism article is extremely clear and well written. In spite of your good intentions, I stand by what I said - Sfacets was absolutely correct in reverting your changes. I will be spending what little time I have in only minor punctuation and grammatical changes, because I believe the article does not need major work. Please read this post on the Hinduism talk page. I agree 1000%. Please also see my One and Only Edit for today on the Hinduism page. This is what I think we should all be working on.

Apandey and HeBhagavan are not sockpuppets. Baseless accusations of sockpuppetry is uncivil behavior. Somehow, you and HeBhagavan need to work it out. Sockpuppet accusations is not the way to do that. I think you are a sincere person, with good intentions, and some good ideas. And I think that HeBhagavan deserves an extraordinary amount of credit for what he's done in making the Hinduism article exceptional. When I see someone like him taking on that responsibility, putting out such positive energy in editing, and doing such a good job, my only question to him would be 'what can I do to help you, sir?' I wish you would do the same (and listen to what he says). I say all this to you as someone who wants to help you, so I hope you can listen to it in that spirit. ॐ Priyanath 22:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You may be right Priyanath that HeBhagawan & Apandey may not be sockpuppets but my allegations are not baseless. I have checked the pattern. Pl. don't think of me to go so low to accuse baseless. Yes, it could turn out to be mere co-incindence. See the volatile outbursts of Apandey. Without any contribution of Apandey, why should he be boiling?

See the comment of RamRamji, his time of registration [[1]] and his reverting of my edits and providing citations [[2]] and vanishing for ever.

Isn't it sock-puppetry? If sock-puppetry is used in a discussion, why would it not be used for voting? Why such un-ethical means against a new editor like me? Isn't it trying to monopolise the article against the policy of Wikipedia and a free software?

In Wikipedia, we will go and next generations will come. Articles will keep on changing and adding up. No one can bring an end to the change in the article any day nor so is intention of Wikipedia Foundation. If, you give credit to HeBhagawan, there may be number of other editors who would have worked on this article earlier. I am seeing origination as back as 2003 or 2004. I have no idea what was the shape of this article but the disagreements and debates have been feature of this article. While you are doing justice to HeBhagawan for bringing the article to present stage, you might be doing injustice to new editors by preventing further edits. Who knows if not me, any other editor may contribute far more better. If, I am putting the energy of making or improving of an article, I am doing it for my job satisfaction. I should be grateful to this free software and accept the rights of others to edit my work. I do have regards for HeBhagawan but we have to bit put weight on our emotions to safeguard the principles of free software.

I am sorry, at this moment, I am not possessing your politeness nor I think that the language of article give excellent connotations of Hinduism and there is no scope of improvement. The day I share your feelings, I shall have the politeness you have today.

I assure you, I have no intention to spoil the article and it shall not happen so but the present contributors have be open to see some better things in other's edits.

My mind is in three things 1) Improving connotations 2) Safeguarding principles of free software and 3) Making editors to be free from possessiveness.

Hope you will appreciate my truthful and frank views.

Swadhyayee 11:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Swadhyayee, you can report suspected sockpuppets here: WP:SUSPSOCK. An admin can confirm through the IP address whether someone is a sockpuppet. I've seen alot of false sockpuppet accusations on Wikipedia, proven to be false by the admins. Better to let them deal with it.

Yes, everyone has the right to edit Wikipedia. And everyone has the right to change another person's edits. I believe HeBhagavan is greatly improving this article, and prefer to work with him rather than against him. You do as you wish.

Regarding your most recent edits, I would also have reverted all of them. I'll explain why right now, but I won't do this in the future because there are so many. I'll just revert with only an edit comment from now on instead. You can view your your recent edit changes here

1. You reverted my One Big Edit for yesterday, changing 'because' back to 'becasue'. I assume good faith, and that it was just a mistake.

2. You changed "In the home, Hindus usually have a special area" to "In the home, Hindus usually make provision of seperate place in house". The original was shorter, simpler, and clearer. It began with the phrase In the home, so your addition of in the house was redundant and made a short clear sentence longer, confusing, and bad english. Also, provision of made it very unclear, and again was not good English.

3. You changed "Often, devotees bring their own food to the temple" to "Often, devotees visiting the temple bring their own food to the temple". Again, redundant and longer. Not the best writing, Swadhayayee.

4. You changed "A guru may also give a student instructions" to "The guru may also give the student instructions". This one was actually a close call. When I speak to a Hindu or someone with an understanding of the Guru, I invariably say "The Guru". But speaking to a broader audience, who is new to the concept of Guru, I usually say 'A Guru.'

5. You changed a reference so it couldn't be read.

I don't have the time to do this with every single edit that you make, Swadhyayee, so in future I won't explain each revert. If I believe that your edit improves the article, I won't revert it. You see, my only goal is to improve the article, and to keep the improvements that excellent editors like HeBhagavan are making.

I am assuming good faith with you Swadhyayee, because I know that you are sincere. I just think, as other editors do, that most of your editing changes are detrimental to the article, as I just pointed out above. Please don't take it personally. I know that you are a very fine person, just like HeBhagavan and others here who are trying to improve the article.

ॐ Priyanath 16:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Thank you for the barnstar!

Priya, can you take a look at this draft for a new section and make any suggestions for improvement? Thanks! [[3]]

Good work on Hinduism realated articles. And by the way I love your userpage. But it has come to my attention that the Krishna picture is copyrighted. This means that it is allowed in the articles but not on userpages. I personaly dislike this rule and I am sure others do to. I am sorry that I have to let you know this. Have a nice day. OM Namo Narayana.--Seadog 00:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Pl. see this. [[4]] Hi Arjun.

Swadhyayee 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you get a chance, please provide your thoughts on my proposal for a paragraph on monasticism on the Hinduism discussion page. Thanks.HeBhagawan 21:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply, here are some pics. They are definatly not as high quality as the BBT ones though.

 

 

These are some of my favorites, Have a nice day.--Arjun 21:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I had recently updated the Kriya_Yoga WIKI page with some links and info and noticed in the history that you removed them stating the page was only for the direct lineage of branches originating from Lahiri Mahasaya. I have a question: Isn't 'Kriya_Yoga' all but one generic branch as revived by Mahavatar Babaji and which should encompass all the lineages and more importantly, present any one searching for information on it with the complete picture and as much information on it as possible?

Good job providing comfort to him. The week-long block in my opinion was very much pushing it. I can not imagine the Hinduism Wikiproject without him. I also tried to cheer him up. I do hope he returns, I worry that the dipute that he was involved in will scar him from returning. Please continue being a civil-editor. May Krishna bless you.--Arjun 02:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks I am back for the kindness of Shell Kinney.

swadhyayee 11:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If have time, pl. see today's discussion on Hinduism and comment.

swadhyayee 14:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if I came off as incivil. I have come across editors who will try and quote any anti-Hindu canard they can come by, which is why I may come off as defensive. I also live in America, where they had actual racial discrimination and real slavery. I dont know where you edit from, but the caste system has been examined to be more of a social phenomenon and less of a religious phenomenon. You may want to check out THE HINDU REFORMATION by K.M.Pannikar for a good way to explain it.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you - I realize that this is a very very loaded issue. I'm sorry that my response to you was rather short. If I had taken time to cool down, I would have been more civil myself. I edit from America also. And I was actually trying to use the analogy to show that the (degraded) caste system is similar to other social phenomena in other countries. I believe it's just a way for people to enslave others, whether physically, spiritually, or economically. I believe its origin was religious (please see the Yogananda quote I put on the Hinduism talk page), but that society ('people') degraded it by using it for selfish purposes. Just my opinion. But my own communication skills weren't good enough to make that clear, obviously. I've glanced at the article/link you posted, and will read it more closely. Reformers (defenders of dharma) like Ram Mohan Roy are an inspiration. ॐ Priyanath 04:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I made a comment on the Yogananda page that you to chose to characterize as 'vandelism'.

It made reference to Yoganadna's love of humor. He often mocked so-called pundits for their dryness and lack of humor.

One of his temples featured in a recent popular television show, Ali G, which happens to be humorous.

All of the above is factual. Did you check these facts before you chose to delete theme and further characterize them as vandelism?

The incidents with Daya Mata, the current president of SRF are documented in SRF's own material.

Did you check these before making your arbitrary decision.

I contend that you have overstepped editorship for censorship. The British call this being 'economical with the truth'.

It is a sadder world where gurus and prophets cannot be represented as they really were, only in a sylized form. Who knows what will remain in 100 years of the historical Yogananda. Perhaps he will become blue and 20 feet tall, accessible only by priests demanding a fee and anyone questioning that will be a heretic to be shot, burned or killed by the orthodox... Today truth goes with a stroke of the pen... Tomorrow life with a stroke of the knife...

Would you mind moving your latest version of "Priyanath's Version" up where all the other "versions" are, so that people know what they are voting on if they vote on your version?

You are right that it may be hard to get enough people to vote for a single version, but at least we are getting some concrete proposals out of this. One way to deal with it may be to do a runoff vote of the top two. That way hopefully the largest number of people possible can get something which they are at least not strongly opposed to. HeBhagawan 16:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

HeBhagawan, It looks like my version is there, at the very end of the other versions. Am I missing something? I'm away from the computer alot today. Feel free to move/add my version in the right place. Yes, a narrowing down of choices will probably be best. But at least people are offering real ideas. ॐ Priyanath 17:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know what you mean, my favorite paintings of Krishna are the ones made by the BBT (The Krishna on your userpage is the BBT) I think. My favorite picture of Krishna is the one you see when you enter the Bhagavad Gita article, It is worth thousands of words yet words are not enough. If you wan't the complete list of free images of Krishna click here. Hope this helps, cheers.--^ॐ Seadog ^ॐ 03:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, as you noticed, I ended up voting for your version of the caste section because it was more concise. However, since people did do such a great job suggesting various alternatives, and then voted on their favorites, I feel it would be a little bit unfair to change the section on caste--for now. So let's just give it a little time, and work on making any other sections more concise for which we can do so while sacrificing the least essential information.

I think that after some time has passed, it would be good to start out by excising a couple sentences from the current section as follows.

Hindu society was traditionally divided into four classes, called varnas within what is commonly called the caste system. What varna a person was in was based on occupation —

• the Brāhmaṇas (also anglicised as Brahmins): teachers and priests;
• the Kṣhatriyas: warriors, kings and administrators;
• the Vaishyas: farmers, merchants, herdsmen and businessmen; and
• the Shūdras: servants and labourers.

Caste, originally determined by the qualities and aptitudes of the individual, eventually became hereditary. As a result, some castes were made superior or "higher" and others inferior or "lower."^[1] Social discrimination against certain castes and classes became a problem.

Today it is often debated whether the caste system is an integral part of the Hindu religion sanctioned by the scriptures or or is simply an outdated social custom.^[2][3] Although the scriptures contain some passages that can be interpreted to sanction the caste system, they also contain indications that the caste system is not an essential part of the Hindu religion, and both sides in the debate are able to find scriptural support for their views.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

Many social reformers, including Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), have criticized the problems caused by caste discrimination.^[4] The saint and religious teacher Sri Ramakrishna (1836-1886) taught that

lovers of God do not belong to any caste . . . . A brahmin without this love is no longer a brahmin. And a pariah with the love of God is no longer a pariah. Through bhakti (devotion to God) an untouchable becomes pure and elevated.^[5]

Although caste distinctions carry less weight in India than they used to, they have not disappeared completely.^[6] In 1947 the government of India abolished caste by law, and more recent laws have attempted to remedy lingering problems related to caste.^[7][8]

Articles should be concise, but I think that it is also worth considering that one of the biggest advantages of Wikipedia over other dictionaries is that you are not so limited by the space between the covers of a physical book. An article about a big, important topic like Hinduism should be longer than many other articles. Wikipedia policies support the view that certain articles may deserve to be longer than the recommended length based on their subject matter. While I believe in moving things to sub-articles, the main article should be long enough to give a decent overview. Priya, I'm not worried about you getting overzealous with deletions, becasue you have a record of good judgement, but I am a little worried about others getting carried away. Personally, as a reader, I would usually rather err on the side of an article having more information than I need than not enough.

All that said, I think that a good place to start trimming is in the "Themes and symbols section."HeBhagawan 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

HeBhagawan, I wasn't attached to my version - I'm more keen on the idea that having a long section on caste makes it seem like an overly important part of Hinduism. I think what's in the article is just fine, it's NPOV, and your shorter version above is even better. With all the arguing about it, just having a vote so people could actually say what they were for (rather than always being against) was helpful, and we now have a record of people agreeing on something.

With article length, I agree with you to a point. Even though there's no space limitation, an article can get so long that people won't read it all. I bet you're more inclined to read a short, concise, well-written argument in a discussion here - compared to a long, rambling argument. That's where I'm coming from with the shorter is better plea. But the article is definitely improving with all the work you and others have put into it, so all is for the good.

I'll continue to pitch in as I can, but there are times when I can't be very involved. ॐ Priyanath 05:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Coming back to zero? Priya, I think it would be better to discuss on talk page of Hinduism and there has to be an end to something. swadhyayee 04:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Swadhyayee, I don't understand the zero comment, can you explain? I've been commenting regularly on the talk page (I have five comments there in the last 24 hours) - so I'm not sure what you mean by that either. It does seem that there is no end, but that's the nature of Wikipedia. In ten years, I bet all of our edits will be gone, improved by new editors. But we can only perform what we believe to be right action, can't we, without being overly attached to the fruits? ॐ Priyanath 05:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just a few random thoughts on my editing philosophy:

Priyanath, As you know, I agree with your ideas about brevity. And I think you understand that there is a delicate balance to be struck between having too much versus too little information. Your ideas about the length of the section on caste over-emphasizing its importance are very good. The other side of the coin, however, is that if we don't explain it sufficiently, people not familiar with Hinduism will go on believing what they believed before: that caste is central to Hinduism, and that it is an excuse Hindus use for keeping the downtrodden down. It would be nice if we could change these mistaken ideas by more-or-less ignoring the issue, or by having a section that presented only one side of the debate. But if we do that, intelligent readers will immediately recognize that the section is pushing one particular POV, and they will discount what it says. That's why I think a little bit of extra explanation is necessary on a few key points that are widely misunderstood about our religion: particularly misconceptions and criticisms about

1. polytheism
2. reincarnation
3. cow worship
4. idol worship
5. and caste.

Again, many editors make the mistake of thinking that they can change misconceptions by merely denying that these misconceptions have any validity or by writing a one-sided article that ignores them. Unfortunately, these "misconceptions" usually have at least a grain of truth to them. If we don't deal with the grains of truth that reflect badly on our religion, readers will no longer trust what the article has to say about them. I'm on swadhyayee's side more than he thinks when it comes to wanting to keep people from misunderstanding Hinduism. However, I think that the path to making them understand lies in addressing the negative things they have heard about Hinduism, and doing it in a fair balanced way. In the end, the truth will shine through, and satyam eva jayate. HeBhagawan 19:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's an article on caste and the Indian caste system, and on Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya, Shudra, Dalit, Adivasi, etc.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

HeBhagawan, I agree that there's a need to educate people about the misconceptions on caste, etc. I would like to see more of that way of thinking, since there's a broad audience for Wikipedia, and it's an opportunity to educate. But in this case, I think that delineating and defining the different castes (as we've done in the article) gives more credence to the rigid caste system, rather than less. I think alot of people will just look at the four castes defined at the beginning of the article, and say 'ah, so that's what the caste system is.' The shorter article gives much more emphasis to the fact that the caste system is a dying anachronism that's not widely accepted in Hinduism. Personally, I just don't want to dilute that plain and important truth. And as Baka says, if people want to learn more, then they can read the specialized article. ॐ Priyanath 20:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Priyanath Yes, that is a good point. Well, let's give it a little while, like I said, so that people don't feel that their votes were for nothing. After some time has passed, I agree that we should trim it a bit. It does worry me a little bit, however, to have an entire encyclopedia article on Hinduism that doesn't even tell the reader what a Brahmin or a Kshatriya (or an untouchable) is. To me and you (and apparently to most of the Hindu editors working on this article), those distinctions are not an essential part of our religion. But it is one of those things that readers expect to learn about, I think. Anyway, I basically agree with you. But it is a tough call to decide exactly where trimming should be done. HeBhagawan 23:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You may be interested in the discussion as eurocentric users are trying to move his page to a title nobody will search for. I know you're busy but nobody searches for "NArendranath Dutta" they search for Swami Vivekanada and no one searches for "Abhay Charan de' they look for Srila Prabhupada and the like. Since you have so many of our great gurus on your page, I thought you may want to look into the discussion.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

We need assessors at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hinduism/Assessment. All you need to do is look at Hinduism related articles and judge how good they look, its extremely backlogged. Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you move the content to the Badrinath temple page? We want the town page to contain generic info, while the religious contents be moved to the temple page.

Thanks. Balajiviswanathan 07:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading the images. You could edit the Badrinath temple article and suitably add the images along with the contents that you have. Balajiviswanathan 23:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the instruction parts from those two articles. It seems that they could be made into good articles about the techniques. Perhaps they should be merged into somewhere, but where? I'd recommend if you still think they should be deleted to AfD them rather than speedy them. If they deserve speedying, an admin who sees the AfD may do it... —Hanuman Das 13:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm glad you are watching this article too. I'll leave it to you for a while. —Hanuman Das 02:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't really watching - but I've had his photo on my userpage for awhile, and noticed that photo had been replaced on his article page, and saw someone post on your userpage about the article. So I had to take a look. I'll do some cleaning up there. ॐ Priyanath 03:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'd rather not have the new user thinking I'm being too hard on him. Good work on your part, so far. :-) —Hanuman Das 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that is a good portrait of Krishna. I didn't see all the new pictures, thanks for letting me know. Cheers!--Seadog 04:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

moving the discussion here so as to not clutter up the discussion...

• Ultra-speedy instant Keep Notable person - several books written about him. Well known in the U.S. and in India. Can an admin do this quickly? Clearly this is an abuse of the AdD tag. What's to keep people from putting an AfD tag on anything? ॐ Priyanath 17:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • comment: nothing stops people from tagging for AfD; that's why we have debates before deleting tagged stuff. What's notable to me may have been tagged by you; the discussion is to determine whether it's notable at large. --user:Qviri 18:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • comment: I understand, but the subject seems so obviously notable, universally and at large, as the comments here declare, that it appears to be an abuse of the AfD process to me. Are five speedy keeps, two keeps, and no deletes enough for an admin to speedy keep this article? ॐ Priyanath 18:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • No offence meant to anyone, but this is the first time I've come across the person... and last I checked I was part of the universe :p. Example off the top of my head, I know people who would consider God Is an Astronaut more notable than Neem Karoli Baba. Sure, it seems like a bad faith nomination to me as well, but there's no reason not to assume good faith, even if just for the heck of it. It's pretty obvious that the article is going to be kept, more than likely within a day. Having a box with a link to a discussion page on top of the page for a day isn't going to hurt anyone.
      • I understand the jitters of having the tag up on an article one cares about... but in this case there's really nothing to get worked up about. --user:Qviri 19:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - no jitters, I just don't like seeing a bad-faith nomination given any support. I know it will be kept after all, whether today or in a few days. Thanks for your hand-holding :-) ॐ Priyanath 19:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if I sounded condescending – didn't mean to. Happy editing. --user:Qviri 20:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you were condescending, I probably deserved it, so no apologies neccessary. It was just speedily kept, so I was just being a nervous nellie after all. ॐ Priyanath 20:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

WoW! I can't believe NKB got nominated and speedily kept, all while I was at work!! I didn't even get to vote. —Hanuman Das 01:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can't believe it was even nominated. I probably raised more of a stink (at WP:ANI) than was needed, but it was such a bad faith nomination that I didn't want to see that tag there longer than a few hours. I have a feeling that there was more going on than meets the eye - like why did someone with only 18 previous edits even know about AfD, and why that article.... ॐ Priyanath 02:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, looked at the user's contribs. It was apparently in retaliation for my voting keep in the Risk-aware consensual kink AfD. —Hanuman Das 02:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

As expected, the article is back to business. -- Szvest ····> ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 16:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your vote - apparently it was a bad-faith nom after all, based on the comment just above yours here. ॐ Priyanath 18:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sir, Regarding your claim that Hariharananda teaches techniques other than Kriya Yoga. Who are you comparing his teachings to and how do you determine what is the correct Kriya? What is the benchmark? In the absence of Babaji, Lahiri, Sri Yukteswar, Kebalananda etc. how can anyone reliably determine what is the correct Kriya? It seems to me that you only think Yogananda's autobiography a reliable source, but how would you know what Yogananda taught, (other than the limited descriptions in Autobiograhy)- or do you base your knowledge on SRF correspondence style Kriya? Does this explain why you persist with the minority POV that Kriya Yoga traditionally doesn't need to be taught by a realized master? It seems to me that good or bad Hariharananda and now Prajnanananda's teachings most closely resemble the orthodoxy of Yogananda, Satyananda and therefore your namesake Sri Yukteswar. I suspect that you are being a oddly pedantic here in order to retain a sense of editorial authority. Your edit of the last Kriya change was splitting hairs in the extreme. To back up an argument with..."everyone knows that" is a lazy way to justify a point.Jzkramer 08:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It looks good. Thanks. You could also link the temple spring images that you said, you have Balajiviswanathan 19:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I added a higher res version of the hot springs/bath house image that I took. ॐ Priyanath 19:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks and good of you to revert nonsense from Hinduism. swadhyayee 05:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also Bhavishya Puran. swadhyayee 08:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

GoodJzkramer 01:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing that to my attention - actually, the article was deleted, but the individual seems to have recreated it. I have speedy deleted the article per criterion G4, recreation of content which was previously deleted under our rules. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Namaskar Priyanath you may want to check out the discussion there on all the issues.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Pl. see the efforts of Abecedare to incorporate mischievous links. Pl. give your view to remove entire discussion if we have to maintain non-sense links on talk page. swadhyayee 01:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Didn't realize it was picked up from a website. Cheers. Cribananda 23:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

No worries mate :-) And I rather like Shamu. Cribananda 01:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

hi MR. PRIYANATH ,This is athma iyer i came to see that you had tagged article on the sholiyar. i had only return this article after gathering news from that commmunite infact i myself was one among the communite, i am ready to provide you necessary details if required please be frank to ask..

thank you and regards 
 athma iyer

I know it's outside your field, but it seems one or two editors are keeping an {unencyclopedic} tag on this article. It looks perfectly encyclopedic to me. Could you take a look and register your opinion (if you form one) on the poll on the talk page? —Hanuman Das 04:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I apologise if you feel discomforted by my using your involvement in the AfD. I was trying to resolve an impasse. I did check your conrib history and thought that people would realise your breadth of involvement in Wiki generally - perhaps I need a reality check? Sorry for any trouble. LessHeard vanU 13:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for helping to keep the AfD tag on the article. My turn if he does it again. His user name seems familiar but I can't recall in what context I may have run across him before... A Ramachandran 01:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

On December 22, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article World Brotherhood Colonies, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hello Priyanath and thanks for creating this article. Keep up the great work on the religion articles. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Congrats on the DYK.Bakaman 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please see this. I am hoping that the Hinduism editors can finally discuss the article formally section by section. More information is given there. Thanks Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

{{User DYK}} . You should use it now. Also in the template "User DYK|#" to show the number you have written.Bakaman 21:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! ॐ Priyanath talk 03:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I especially objected to the expression: "the wisdom that readers are familiar with". Otherwise that section seems almost fine. Kkrystian 09:53 (UTC+1) 30 Dec 2006

I also think we should provide some more citations for that article. Kkrystian 19:44 (UTC+1) 30 Dec 2006

Thank you for your cooperation. I have no idea where to find any other biographies of Sri Yukteswar. Kkrystian 11:16 (UTC+1) 31 Dec 2006

Thanks bro. Check out the names though User:Bakasuprman#Names.Bakaman 18:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Very impressive! You have alot of secret admirers. Let me know when the names get up to 108, and we can make an article page for you like the 108 names of Krishna. :-) ॐ Priyanath talk 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am a bit confused about some cultural issues.--Filll 22:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You have been invited to help improve the article Sita Ram Goel in this weeks's Hinduism collaboration. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. See also these related articles. [5]

You can also vote for next's week collaboration at the project page: Wikipedia:Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week. Unfortunately, the Collaboration site is little known, that's why the reminder. --Bondego 14:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oops we have edited over each other. So find a lead sentence that agrees with WP:LEAD. We need the words Hinduism and creationism in the first sentence, as close to the start of the sentence as possible. So if we can think of something more general that does that, then we are good.--Filll 02:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok I made a sentence that hopefully satisfies the requirements of the rules for LEADs here. How does it look to you? I also moved one of the paragraphs down to the beliefs section since the LEAD was getting too long. I am not a fan of very long LEADs.--Filll 02:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please review my suggestion at Talk:Hinduism and creationism#Lead. Abecedare 02:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm generally happy with how the lead reads now (see my comments at Talk:Hinduism and creationism#Lead). And thanks, Abecedare, for acknowledging my brilliant (blush...) edit summmary - it would probably be considered uncivil by some, but I couldn't resist. ॐ Priyanath talk 07:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove the three characteristics of a true guru? User:Kkrystian 22:56 (UTC+1) 9 January 2007

1. Because every single one was contradicted, to some degree, by Lahiri's own actions. I'm the one who added all of the qualifications, but it still makes it confusing for readers. 2. Because there is no evidence that they are a 'notable' aspect of his teachings. I'm planning on introducing more of his teachings, but those teachings that were oft repeated, in different books, with citations showing that they are indeed 'notable', and not just selective. ॐ Priyanath talk 22:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

But only the first teaching (about money and gifts) was arguably contradicted to a certain extent. Kkrystian 13:42 (UTC+1) 10 Jan 1007

It was absolutely and unquestionably contradicted. Lahiri asked for a donation every time he initiated someone into Kriya. If that section does go back up, I intend to point this out as a clear and definite contradiction and thus question the translation, the translator, and/or the context from which those points were taken. I tried to gloss it over before, because I think it makes Lahiri Mahasaya look like he couldn't make up his mind, at best, or dishonest ('don't give donations to a Guru, unless it's me') at worst. I've never seen those notable points in any of the extensive other materials written by and about Lahiri Mahasaya. I will be adding some truly notable things next week that Lahiri said about the guru, that he said often and in different books. The second point also could be seen as a contradiction, depending on which definition of assume you use. One of the definitions of that word would fit exactly what Lahiri did with his title, which was to accept a title given by others. I would point this out also as a contradiction. The third point still requires an explanation. But it all ends up being unencyclopedic, unflattering to Lahiri Mahasaya, and in the end, not a notable part of his teachings. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

P.S. A Bengali friend a couple of years ago told me that the translation of Lahiri Mahasaya's writings that Satyeswarananda did in his book (where these strange and conflicting 3 points come from) is not entirely accurate. My friend had the original Bengali. He wasn't specific about this particular passage being discussed here, so I don't know what the proper translation would be. But it does explain one reason why Lahiri would 'say' something that was completely opposite of what he 'did'. In this case, I would trust his actions, and not a translation from Bengali to English that may have lost the true meaning. Also, another translation of Lahiri Mahasaya's Gita commentaries (Yoganiketan) has nothing remotely resembling those three points. There are so many things that don't pass the smell test on this that it fails Wikipedia's reliable sources test, and should not be used in an encyclopedia article. See: WP:VERIFY —ॐ Priyanath talk 20:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Namaskar Priyanath,

I havenot edited and inserted links to commercial sites. I inserted a link to a site that I myself visit and found it to be non commercial and complimentary to the yoga topics. I apologise for any mistake that I may have committed. I am new to editing of wikipedia. I look up to wikipedia with great respect, and consider it the largest online repository of quality human edited knowledge.

I know someday my kids will be using it to complete their homework and help with their studies, and I am not going to pollute such a venerable site with useless links.

Thank you for pointing me to the guides for editing. Also you can visit the website that I have linked to http://www.yoga-and-meditation.org/yoga/ and see if that is not a proper site to link to.

Regards

Arpan Deb Manushya 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for telling me. Do you think we could include it in some Wikipedia article? User:Kkrystian 15:20 (UTC+1) 15 Jan 2007

I think everyone has forgotten about this! Gizza^{Chat ©} 23:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Learning the ropes slowly. Thank you for guiding me. I have re-edited the page. Can you please have a look and tell me if I did it right this time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manushya (talk • contribs) 09:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

Hello. It appears that an older version of this article has been resurrected by Sfacets. He restored a section titled "Differences..." which appears to have been controversial. He only restored the heading with a note saying, "This can be shortened and cleaned up, keeping for reference", so I cleaned it up. Then I was contacted by Hamsacharya dan who noted that the section was controversial. Checking the edit history, you seem to be the only currently active editor who was involved in the dispute on that section. Of the others, one has retired from Wikipedia, and the other two don't seem to have edited for some time. So I thought you might be interested in what happens with that article and section. A Ramachandran 14:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This new Afd is based on Gurunath's own request to have the article removed. Please vote. Senior Hamsacharya 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Priyanath,

I am just now learning the wiki protocols- pretty facinating- I just discovered your comments and realize there are doctrinaire and dharma features in descriptions of exactly what Samadi is and how it is attained but also know there are many conflicts and contradictions for example between varieties of Tantra some of which propose sexual episodes (following sectarian protocols) can trigger authentic Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

I'm not suggesting that physical exercize or sex commonly triggers a samadhi event- only that in rare instances a spontaneous conscious experiences equivalent to Nirvikalpa Samadhi can be triggered by something as mundane as a hard day's work. ref: http://geocities.com/maya-gaia/synchronicity_samadhi.html

Objectivity for something as numinous as the samadhi-like episode can only depend on subjective accounts and the very few instances where meditators were subjected to monitoring breath and heart-beats, etc. so it would be unjustified to claim that ALL samadhi experiences manifest this feature with only the suggestion from these few examples.

It would seem one cannot arbitrarily claim objectivity by refering to a particular version of dharma for then we are into philosophy and religious bias. I would appreciate your perspective on my account of a samadhi-like episode at> http://geocities.com/maya-gaia/mysticalexp.html

P.S. I just discovered your editing out of the one word- "essential" which I accept because it's implication is ambiguous- thanks.

With kind regards Mayagaia 16:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome in my talk

Am starting to catch up on the wiki protocols.

I see that the internal link to "archetypal" is removed and agree that the wiki article it pointed to deals with the concept in psychoanalysis and that the other disambiguation definitions aren't helpful- so best to leave it as you have it so it can be intuited as to its implication.

Am working on some references tho within the authoritative religious doctrine and dharma there appears much contradiction and to quote Whitehead, Ken Wilber, Lee Pulos, Kenneth Ring, P.M.H. Atwater although published- what qualifies them as "knowers". More anon. Regards Mayagaia 21:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

On copyediting the Hinduism article, thank you, thank you. Cheers! Arjun 03:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that, I did something wrong that gave you that warning. I mistakenly reverted one of your good edits. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 03:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, in addition to your comments, for sorting purposes, could you please answer the questions in the Guidelines section. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you've been following the discussion on User talk:Hamsacharya dan, but perhaps you could take a peek if you haven't. I've worked with him to remove all but one of the "differences" notes, but the last one involved Mahavatar Babaji and Krishna vs. Shiva, etc. I think you may have written it or at least started it. I suggested that Hamsacharya Dan discuss your concerns with you, as he'd like to find some way to remove it from the article. I'm not completely clear whether there are parts of the article which it still addresses. A Ramachandran 18:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Priyanath. As you know, we've discussed this one in the past. At this point, do you have any objection to removing this from the article? Hamsacharya dan 06:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I posted a message to the anonymous user who my VP went wild on. I don't do automatic reverts, I do them manually, and somehow that revert was executed when it was clearly not warranted. So, my version is not working correctly, because I only make reverts to obvious vandalism. It is not the only time this has happened, so I will cease to use VP until a better, more reliable programs come around. Popups works just fine for now. Neonblak 05:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Priyanath,

I'd like to add a reference to another disciple of Satya Charan Lahiri Mahasaya: Yogi Prakesh Shankar Vyas (Guruji).

What is the process of doing so? Best regards Ilyali 16:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

See my response on your Talk page. ॐ Priyanath talk 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Priyanath, thanks much for you help. I edited the page. I have one more question. Am I allowed to add a link to add a link to a page with information about him under category Kriya Yoga Teachers and Organizations Ilyali 02:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

[6] and A Ramachandran. The internet is a strange place... Hamsacharya dan 04:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Priyanath, I included a proposal on the Kriya Yoga discussion page to which I'd be happy to hear your comments.

Silentswan 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you help me tackle pig-headed racists on Wikipedia who keep reverting my changes? They are extremely jealous and want to hide the truth. They keep vandalising my changes in Shiva, Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu, Dasarajna, and Hindu and others but these are the main ones. Thanks Maleabroad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.32.216 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

Thank You, Priyanath/Archive 2 for your Support! Thank you for your support in my RfA, which closed at 111 / 1 / 2. I am humbled and rather shocked to see such kind comments and for it to reach WP:100. Please feel free to leave a note if I have made a mistake or if you need anything, I will start out slow and tackle the harder work once I get accustomed to the tools. Thank you once more, I simply cannot express in words my gratitude.

...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your overwhelming support, I really feel honored that you feel that way. ~ Arjun 20:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I thought you might be interested (at your convenience). Talk:Indian_mathematics#Request_for_comment:Indian_Mathematics Feedback is requested for a problem on the Indian mathematics page. The issue is disagreement between two users on whether entire versions should be reverted or better citations pointed out and procured on demand. _{Freedom skies| talk}  11:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Priyanath, I hope your travels are going well. I have made some comments on the KY talk page. I think it's something that we may be able to agree upon (I hope). Please take a look when you get a chance. I've been getting some resistance from some first-time editor (I think we can all deduce pretty easily who it is). Anyway, all the best to you, and see you (apparently) soon. --Hamsacharya dan 16:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I hope you've enjoyed your break! Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ha ha! If you see this, you will notice that my heart is with India and am obviously quite disappointed just like the other billion fans. But is doesn't matter too much. I have Viveka and Vairagya :) I hope to see you on Hinduism pages once again. Btw, an excellent new user has arrived Buddhipriya, who has already improved many articles. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the template. I will try it out. I'll also think about implementing the avatar/surrogate mom/100sons/'god' father situation .. Cheers Vinwe 14:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply