Talk:Hinduism/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

About the heading =

Well, yes I agree with you. But Vedic and Santan did originate from Hinduism. User:Ujjwal Krishna

Keep it Hindu. Vedic, Sanatan tradition are different from present Hinduism. For all these traditions write separate articles. Especially in vedic times there was not Casteism and Untochability like today's Caste based Hinduism. 170.252.80.2 18:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Sanatana dharma is sometimes used to refer to modern Hinduism, but there is no need to include such minor details in the introduction to the article. HeBhagawan 03:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC).

If anyone disagrees with this, please explain why. Remember: The introductory paragraph of the article is only supposed to give a few key facts. Alternate names of the religion, especially those which are not used very commonly, are not KEY facts in my opinion. Let's keep the intro paragraph simple. Thanks to all who contribute and make suggestions! HeBhagawan 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The starting paragraph says that Hinduism "is a set of religious traditions that originated mainly in the Indian subcontinent". Shouldn't it just say that it "is a religion that originated mainly in the Indian subcontinent"? It's simpler, doesn't beat around the bush, and makes it clear that this article deals with a religion. Splashprince 14:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Splash, Yes, I think you are right. We shouldn't beat around the bush in the introductory paragraph. Feel free to change it if you think best. HeBhagawan 02:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Now, apart from style and on a point of substance: I have been of the impression that Hinduism is as much a religion as it is a way of life. This is what I've been told, have observed and read. Any comments on this? Should this be mentioned in the introductory text? Cheers. Splashprince 03:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It can be either or both. It depends on whom you ask. See the section on religious conversion. What do you think, does that explain it well enough? This page is getting full. From now on, let's make all notes at the bottom of the discussion page. HeBhagawan 04:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User 170.252.80.2: That way you would have 30 or 50 articles on Hinduism. Hinduism is not a fossil, it keeps on changing according to times, so we will have one for Hinduism in 1200 BC to 1300 BC, another for 1100 BC to 1200 BC, and so on. What happens when two rivers merge, normally the merged river is known by the name of the greater river. In the same way indigenous belief (we call it Sanatan Dharma) and Vedic belief merged, and the resultant belief is again known as Sanatan Dharma. Aupmanyav 13:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you think?

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

Excellent, Babub, We all try that misconceptions about our religion are removed. Aupmanyav 04:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a great idea for an article! It would be very good to have similar articles for Hinduism in other countries as well. However, it makes sense to start with India. HeBhagawan 12:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI

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

External links

I'm supposed to discuss it before I add it in, so discuss!

http://www.hinduwiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Reincarnation

Unless my "find" button is broken, there is no mention of the word "reincarnation" in this article other than as a link. There is one casual mention of the word "rebirth" (samsara) but it is not elaborated on. There is another mention of "samsara," but it is redefined to mean "householder's stage." I looked under "reincarnation" to see if Hindus actually believe in the concept, and sure enough here is what it says: "This doctrine is a central tenet within the majority of Indian religious traditions such as Yoga, Vaishnavism, Jainism and Sikhism." So somehow a central tenet of Hinduism was not explicitly mentioned on this page...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marty8 (talk • contribs) .

A lot about hinduism is missing in the article.nids(♂) 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And the problem is that there is already too much information in the article! Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

the size of the article is down to 'acceptable' again, and there can well be a brief statement on reincarnation. dab (ᛏ) 09:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess we can remove the details of Shat Astik (Vedic) Darshans. Afterall, they are not the only Hindu philosophies and undue importance is given to them in this particular article. We also have Six Schools of Shaivism, six for Vaishnavism#Schools_of_Vaishnavism, one for Shaktism and some for Tantrik sects too. Most of these are unrelated to Vedic Darshans. nids(♂) 12:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What is this article about, Hinduism or Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism. Let them say about themselves. They don't need our help. Aupmanyav 02:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Unsourced

The majority of contemporary Hindus follow the Vedanta philosophy and believe in a cosmic spirit called Brahman, that is worshipped in many forms such as Vishnu, Shiva or Shakti.

What is the source of this statement. Has there been a census on the numbers for different sects of hinduism.nids(♂) 21:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Babub, first you filed an AfD. Now, why do you want to Push your POV in the Hinduism Article. Why cant you understand that there is much more to Hinduism than a single philosophy.nids(♂) 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

See i am not even objecting to this line although it is unsourced and perhaps wrong too.nids(♂) 14:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

^Babub→Talk 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Even if you want to point out that many Hindus follow Vedanta, you should not use the term "the majority" unless you have a specific citation. "Majority" means "More than 50%"--so it is a pretty specific number.HeBhagawan 13:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Trollish Propaganda

Nids, why do you want to push your nonsense here? Show me one reputable source for your rantings. Such actions of yours show you are here just to push the propaganda of nationalism and distort Hinduism for your nefarious ends. ^Babub→Talk 13:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you please go through the comments on the RfC debate that you filed.nids(♂) 13:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I never filed any "RfC". If you mean the AfD, why don't you go throught the article Atheism in Hinduism which I edited based on the AfD? If you are here to seriously contribute to this encyclopedia, why don't you do some constructive edits to Atheism in Hinduism, nastika and other related philosophical issues? Why do you want to push your pov in the main article??? ^Babub→Talk 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i will improve them. But why are you so against in mentioning them in this article. How is it my POV by the way. There are more than a few philosophies that were atheistic. If you cant acknowledge them, than its whose POV.nids(♂) 14:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I am not against mentiioning it in the article, but it should not be in the intro because, 1. They are a historical viewpoint held by some schools of Hindu philosophy but still not as a final doctrine (atheism is not the main thrust of these schools, but moksha is). 2. The present day "Hindu atheists" are mostly of the jingoistic variety who live the imaginary "way of life" world. My reply to 2. is: religion=way of life! Anyway to get back to the point, it can be mentioned in the "Philosophy" section but not in the intro, because 99.999% of Hindus are not atheist. You can contact any Hindu scholar in the world and ask him/her if he/she is an atheist. ^Babub→Talk 14:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can anyhow prove that 99.999% of the Hindus in the world are not atheists, than you can please remove this from intro. Till than, let this one line remain there.nids(♂) 14:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No no, my dear nids, the onus is upon you to prove that 99.999% of Hindus are not theists. Nevertheless, I've mentioned about the article in the Hinduism#Purva Mimamsa section. ^Babub→Talk 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not. When we are discussing the philosophy part. And leave this babub. There are too many things that are unsourced. How will you provide the source of above statement. If you want to move this to the middle of the article, than i may well delete the unsourced part in the above discussion.nids(♂) 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you also mention in it Samkhya part, which never turned theistic.nids(♂) 14:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to be clever, you have to give the source saying all Hindus are not theistic. (FYI, even Buddhists worship gods and are not atheists).^Babub→Talk 14:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats an interesting statement. So, i just have to prove that all hindus are not theistic. Ok. Will do that and then add it in the intro section. Fine. How about the statement above which says that the majority of hindus are vedanta followers. Which Means no place for Shaivites, vaishnavites or even shaktas. Do you think that should remain in the intro ection unsourced.nids(♂) 14:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you get off my back??? Do not try to frame me as a Vedanta pov-guy, bcos I am not!! ^Babub→Talk 14:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have simply asked you a question. And i dont think that you have edited anything that is non-compatible with Vedanta philosophy.nids(♂) 14:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And the thing is that you dont want to accept anything which is non-vedanta but Hindu. By the way, does vedanta allow you to bury a dead instead of cremating him.nids(♂) 14:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you are older than a teen. Am I right? Look at this page carefully: Wikipedia:What is a troll. ^Babub→Talk 16:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong about my age. Well are you defining yourself?? I dont see much difference.nids(♂) 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you also know that by using certain diction, you have completely lost the moral ground.nids(♂) 16:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! Trolls who just make some nonsense edits have no place in an encyclopedia project like this one. We're dealing with content here and we don't need verbal garbage here. Look at uncyclopedia: for one project that may have some use for it. ^Babub→Talk 16:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You have forgotten something. Nobody is the owner of Wiki.nids(♂) 16:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Go through Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for details.nids(♂) 16:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Babub, you should revert yourself. I didn't wanted to escalate the problem. But if you continue like this, i will have to ask an administrator intervention, (which i personally, dont want to do).nids(♂) 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You know nids, Hinduism's atheism is somewhat vague and practiced by a minute number of people. More than a sentence is doing a disservice to mainstream Hindu practices.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

With due respect Bakman, what you have written above is your opinion.You have cited no references to show that Hindu atheists are minute in number. Atheist Hindus or Atheism in Hinduism is a valid concept and should remain in the article. - Parthi 02:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Sorry nids and Venu but I think it is slightly POV to mention it the way you did in the first paragraph. Firstly, the atheism sentence according to this was the third sentence of the whole article. The first impression that a person who has no clue on Hinduism gets when he reads the opening paragraph is Hinduism is mainly a monist religion but can also be athiest. There is much more than Hinduism than atheism or Vedanta. It is a bit misleading. Having said that, a good source is needed that majority of Hindus follow Vedanta (which I personally don't think so entirely. I have a feeling there is more devi/deva worshipping by the 930 million Hindus than knowing what Brahman or any other philosophical concept is.) Perhaps no denomination or philosophy should be metioned early on in the article considering that the relgion is so diverse unless a proper source is found for Vedant. I still deep down think most of the villagers/businessmen/common people ie) non-Brahmins/Swamis have little knowledge of what Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Sankhya, Mimansa, ... are. I believe they know more of how Hanuman burned Ravan's palace in Lanka and sing bhajans to the various gods. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Hindu temples

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.104.113 (talk • contribs)

why not put these images in a Category:Hindu temples? the gallery clutters the talkpage and will just be lost in the archives while the category will remain accessible. dab (ᛏ) 08:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is this enemy of Hinduism?

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

Why do you call everybody as enemy of Hinduism? This article is not private property of few people. It is difficult to decide who a Hindu is? Truthlover 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Have I ever said that the article is my property? I object to sentences like, 'Hinduism is not a single well-defined religion' or that 'hinduism is amorphous' or that 'hinduism does not know what is what'. Hinduism gives freedom of personal belief and values traditions of all sections of its adherents. A hindu is one who claims to be one and follows 'dharma' (duty/right action). Could anyone tell me why should there be a controversy? Aupmanyav 02:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Denominations

This section needs some clarifying. Even though "God" is spelt with a capital G, it would be better if the article used the term "Supreme God." I don't want to use relgious termonology like henotheism, pantheism, monotheism or whatever but most Vaishnavs, Shaivs, and Shakts still believe in the existance of other devas/devis. For example, ISKON acknowledges that the Trimurti exists but Vishnu or more specifically Krishna is above Brahma (who they believe is the "second creator") and Shiva. Many Shaivas of course worship Ganesh and Kartikkeya while there are Shaktas who believe that Shakti is the divine mother of the trimurti. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Da Gizza:

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Here are my thoughts: You are right that most denominations believe in other devas and devis, so the Hinduism article should indeed note this. At the same time, however, the primary goal of the main Hinduism article should be to highlight (as much as possible) the beliefs most denominations have in common--i.e., to show what beliefs unify them so that they are all considered "Hindus." So I don't want us to drown readers in information about each and every deva and devi.

Each individual denomination can have its own separate article that will highlight how it is different from other denominations, which can be linked to the Hinduism page. This will help to keep the Hinduism page coherent, and will help to explain what it means to be a Hindu, rather than what it means to be a Vaishnava, Shaiva, etc. To learn in detail what it means to be a Vaishnava, Shaiva, or shakta, readers should follow the links to the articles for those denominations. On the pages for each denomination, readers will be able to find links to the devas and devis associated with that particular denomination. Thus, the shakta article will include links to Kali, Parvati, Durga, and so on. But we should not try to include everything in the main Hinduism page. What do you think? HeBhagawan 15:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you pretty much. This page should focus on the similarities between all Hindus, or at least most Hindus since it is a very diverse religion. If there are not many similarities then it should not be regarded as one religion. I think we will have to use the "standard" definition of Hinduism here, which is the religion that came from the Vedas and doesn't include Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. The page so big already and there is stil so much which isn't mentioned. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Sikhism was not found when there was a fight with the mainstream hinduism.....it was found when moguls were slaughtering hindus to convert them to islam.....sikhism faught back and preety much saved hinduism from being wiped off (just a little fact check)

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

Not necessarily true. Only people who follow advaita are more liberal. In Ramanuja's time, Vaishnavites were persecuted by a saivite king; that's why ramanuja moved to Karnataka for a while. Although tensions are small., there's a schism among Vaishnavites and Saivites.

The American model of many forms of deities is not the rule in India. It's sort of a compromise. Please read, http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2004/10-12/66-67_atlanta.shtml contrast that with temples in India. You never see a Shiva temple with a murti of Vishnu. Conflicts are rare in Hinduism because of the predominance of Advaita philosophy among the learned, who teach and influence the masses. Ramanjua's and Madhva's philosophies had difficulty surmounting Sankara's advaita philosophy, in influence. Madhava did succeed in spreading the bhakti movement all over India.

Raj2004 10:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In every religion, including Hinduism, there is some disagreement among denominations. But the fighting among denominations within Hinduism does seem to be pretty minimal overall, especially if you compare it with some other religions. The Hinduism article conveys this reasonably well, I think: it doesn't pretend that there are no disagreements among Hindus, and, at the same time, it doesn't exaggerate the differences. HeBhagawan 12:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

I have not been a regular contributer to wikipedia, just fixing things here and there whenever I see something wrong. Today, I learned about official qualifications for 'good articles' 'feature articles' and was so disappointed to not see Hinduism, while Sikhism and others were present. Obviously I'm not screaming "Discrimination!" at Wikipedia, but "Aloof!" at myself, for not contributing earlier. I have made it a goal now to make the Hinduism article and all related articles at a pristine level, to be renowned in Wikipedia. Because there are many more contributers already active here, I thought it would be better to perhaps use this 'discussion' page to mention my first idea before doing anything too drastic ;)

What first comes to mind: I have always spoken of Hinduism as neither Polytheistic, Monotheistic, Monistic, Dualistic, Qualified Dualistic, etc. but instead, as "multi-theistic" as it is so intrinsically plural, and yet beautifully unified. I am not speaking of simply the Saiva, Vaishnawa, Shakta, Smarta, etc. sects, but the definitive nature of smriti in dharma, i.e. any paramasatguru's prescribed smriti defines a unique element of this "multi-theism"

So, what I would like to do, to emphasize this nature, which I see anyway, as a possibly potent means of elucifying the true esoteric nature of Hinduism, is to enumerate at the highest possible level. This may be best accomplished by a kind of "dharma tree", with, perhaps, a parallel grihashta/sanyaasi dharma tree.

The core definition of Hinduism, I see as an inclusion of the Vedas in smriti. And yet, I feel a very strong but subtle bond to Buddhism, Jainism, and with context, Sikhism. So, perhaps having this at the highest level, may be effective, though I cautiously present this idea as I know that some Buddhist sects, at least, do not wish to see this type of association. However, as this article should be a Hindu understanding, with a preliminary disclaimer, I would imagine it to be acceptable.

One reason that I would like to see it this way, is because I've seen apparent Hindu generalities taken for granted as being such and included as such. For example, people commonly speak of Hinduism as having an idea of seven lotuses (muladhara, svadisthana, ... , sahasrara), but this is normally taken from Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, which, is not necessarily included in every element of our "multi-theism," as other elements may speak of only six, and specifically call them Chakras--not lotuses--and by different names. Now, because I have no examples from Hinduism articles in Wikipedia, I'm not going to say it's necessary for that purpose. However, if we categorize a very broad pool of beliefs that can be included or excluded from an particular element (i.e dharma), we can forever expel the possibility of any unnecessary, and potentially insulting, over-generalization, and again, I believe this can greatly clarify, if properly explained (which I am now very committed to doing), to people with little or no true Hindu exposure.

I am very eager to hear feedback on this idea; so much so that I'd rather not continue without it :-)

Saiva suj 19:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not able to understand your say that Vedas are included in Smritis. I feel the roots of Smritis are in Vedas. Are you talking of Smriti in context of memory or scriptures like Manu-Smriti. Smritis are constitutions whereas I believe Vedas can be considered as science. Pl. explain and oblige.

Swadhyayee 03:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your useful comments, Saiva suj. It's great that you want to contribute. Here are my thoughts:

All your ideas are interesting and deserve to be shared with Wikipedia readers, but they are so deep and detailed that I'm not sure that it would be ideal to put them on the main "Hindusim" page. It might be better to include them in a page that is linked to the Hinduism page. The reason is that your ideas are very deep and detailed. When somebody who knows nothing about Hinduism wants to learn a few key facts, they go to Wikipedia Hinduism. They go to the Hinduism page to get a SIMPLE SYNOPSIS of the religion, something they can digest in a few minutes. If they want further information and a deeper understanding of the religion, they follow some of the links. But the Hinduism page itself should present the religion in a nutshell, in a simple manner. So maybe some of your ideas should be put on a page that is linked to the hinduism article.

As for the "multitheistic" idea:

No matter what "label" we place on Hinduism--pantheistic, monotheistic, polytheistic, or multitheistic--we are going to have to do some explaining, because no single word in English can fully explain Hinduism's idea of God. "Multitheisic" is ok, but I'm not sure that it is any better than "polytheistic." "Multi-" and "poly-" mean exactly the same thing. I think the key is to say something like "Hindusim has been described sometimes as monotheistic, sometimes as polytheistic, sometimes as pantheistic, and sometimes as henotheistic. Each of these is true in its own way." Then go on to explain. HeBhagawan 12:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

HeBagawan, Thank you much, for your warm welcome :) and kind reply. I had read in this discussion page that there was an issue with the size of the page, and this is sort of what inspired my perspective; no synopsis of Hinduism can be reasonably sized while being adequate or accurate, if it is styled as it is. I would like to see the pillar Hinduism article as providing an extremely terse, but accurate overview, describing this fundamental nature, as well as the true--and definitive--core of Hindu thought. Also, what I intended by using "multitheistic" was simply to distinguish it from the meaning of polytheistic: a multitude of faiths as opposed to one simple faith, involving many individual Gods to be worshipped. Saiva suj 15:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Saiva suj:

You are right that the main Hinduism page needs to be focused. Where do you think the best place to start is? I am thinking that the section on Hindu philosophy (darshana) should be moved to its own page. It takes up a lot of space and, while the darshanas are imortant, I don't think they are so central to Hinduism that they have to be discussed on the main Hinduism page. Even most people who have been Hindus their entire lives would not be able to explain what the darshanas are, so it is probably not necessary to discuss them in a nutshell introduction to the religion. It is more likely to confuse non-Hindus than to enlighten them. The criterion for including things on the main page should probably be:

"If we have only 10 minutes to explain the entire Hindu religion to a person who knows nothing about it, what will we tell them?"

HeBhagawan 15:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan, I believe this article should explain in some detail the following concepts:
1) microcosmic & macrocosmic evolution
2) intrinsically cyclical nature of universe
3) Hindu perspective of role of religion in one's existence
In #3, I would like to stress the ideas of san marga Vs. anavo marga
Saiva suj 16:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Saiva suj and HeBhagawan, I'd strongly urge both of you to please read the following Wikipedia policies before launching your improvement drive: WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCE, WP:CITE, WP:MOS, WP:WIAFA. If your edits and information do not comply with these policies, they will be removed so please do read them thoroughly. Please see example featured articles like Sikhism to understand what is involved in writing a featured article. Rama's arrow 16:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Multi-theism or atheism. The best thing to say is that belief is a personal matter in Hinduism. 2. Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs generally don't want to be counted as hindus. Let it be rather than take up the issue with the millitant no-sayers. 900 million or 950 million does not make much difference. The bond, whatever is, would still be there. 3. Yoga or tantra, just like darshanas, perhaps they are better in their own pages. Hindus in general have no dealing with these esoteric practices. 4. Hinduism has never stressed on a particular theory of evolution, They have sort of side-stepped it, as they were more interested in Dharma. But my favourite, the Nasadeeiya Sukta, should be mentioned. 5. As Rama's Arrow says, writing for Wikipedia is not easy, one has to be careful. I limit myself to suggestions and rarely indulge in editing. I do agree that generally the hinduism-related pages are in bad shape and the credit goes to people who insist on presenting their personal views here. Aupmanyav 09:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for your suggestions! The Hinduism page still needs lots of work, but I think it is slowly improving. It's definately better than the mess that was there a couple months ago. Keep up the good work. HeBhagawan 18:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed Raj Yoga..

With due apology to the writer of Raj Yoga - a way to realise God, I have removed it as The Authentic Scripture "Srimad Bhagwad Geeta" has named only 3 methods, Bhakti Yog, Karma Yog and Jnan Yog.

Pl. leave a message on my talk page while this comment is replied.

Swadhyayee 17:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your contributions, Swadhyayee. It is great that you want to work on the page. With due respect, however, there are a few problems with your edits:

1. Lack of citations
2. Poor English
3. Poor organization
4. POV imposition (e.g., implying that the Bhagavad Gita is the only "authentic" Hindu scripture).

Please don't feel insulted. I recommend that when you make new additions, you should use citations, have a native-level English-speaker check the grammar, and think about how your additions can compliment the overall organization of the article. If you do not have time to do this, another way is to just put your ideas on the discussion page for others to incorporate into the article. What do others think?HeBhagawan 19:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not agree with your comments. I feel that you are trying to monopolise the article with your views. No one can claim to be perfect in opining for Hinduism, nor I admit that my English is poor. There is always a scope for refining any initial writing so the same can not be construed as poor English. I hope you will agree that knowledge of a subject is more significant over use of language. You by claiming that Srimad Bhagwad Geeta is not the only authentic scripture of Hinduism, exhibit your need to study further. The scholars from world over are impressed by Srimad Bhagwad Geeta and if I mistake not, Srimad Bhagwad Geeta is translated in nearly 100 languages which include translation by scholars of other religions too. Can you show me a single Hindu scripture which is so widely accepted world over without disputing a single principle like of Srimad Bhagwad Geeta? Rev. figures like Shankaracharya, Jnaneshwar, Swami Vivekanand, Shri Vinoba Bhave, Gandhibapu, Shri Tilak, Shri Gopalkrishna Gokhale, Shri Krishnamurthy and n' number of scholars have preferred to comment upon Srimad Bhagwad Geeta and have lived their life as per Srimad Bhagwad Geeta's dictates.

I would prefer to say that so far as facts known to almost everyone with slight knowledge of Hinduism does not need citation. Your removal of branches of Vedas indicate your interest of maintining only your views in the article.

I wish and solicit you to exhibit sportsman spirit and allow this article with additional facts.

Swadhyayee 03:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, Certainly the article can have additional facts. But let's try to make it of high quality, which means giving thought to the overall organization and having citations for as many assertions as possible. As suggested by Rama's Arrow, we should take guidance from featured articles like Sikhism, which explain the religion in an organized, clear manner.

Remember who the audience is: people who do not know anything about Hinduism. The article is an introduction. If it gives too much detail, it will be confusing for such people and it will be too long. So it is important to limit it to key concepts (but we can have links to articles that provide more detail on particular topics).

Just to be clear about the Gita--I am not saying that the Gita is an unauthentic scripture. Of course it is authentic. Nearly all denominations recognize the Gita. It may even be the most widely-read scripture in Hinduism. I only said that it was not the ONLY authentic scripture. There are other authentic scriptures too, such as the Vedas and Puranas, which are also recognized by most Hindus.

As for the branches of the Vedas, you are right: information about this should be included in the article. However, much of what you wrote was duplicated elsewhere (See Classification of Scriptures). What do you think about incorporating your information on classification of the Vedas into that section? HeBhagawan 04:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I shall be the happiest one if the article is of high quality, but in the guise of maintaining high quality article, one should not be allowed to monopolise on the contents of the article.

I have not seen Sikhism but I think the volume of scriptures of Sikhism against Hinduism would be quiet managable. We can't make Sikhism an ideal to make Hinduism page. I would have a look at Sikhism.

I do not take your removal of branches of Vedas as a bonafide act. May be un-intentionally but you are preventing incorporation of additional facts. I request you to scroll down the article and see the incorporation like Deities, Symbols, Guru-Disciple tradition, Mantra etc. and do some soul searching, you found only branches of Vedas in-appropriate for the article?

I also agree that the article will serve more purpose if the text is understandable to people of other religions or new generation of Hindus. The language of a doctorate in philosophy could be more impressive but could be less understandable to a common man or a youth. The language of article should be like talks flowing from the mouth of a teacher. One way you talk of article to be understandable to an alien, otherside you say my English is poor. Could you point out where did you find grammatical mistake in my edits?

What would you say authentic scripture of Muslims and Christains? Will everyone not agree, it to be "Kuran" and "Bible"? Ask anyone from other religion, would they not say "Srimad Bhagwad Geeta" an authentic Hindu scripture? You are pointing out Wikipedia policy to support that "Srimad Bhagawad Geeta" can not be implied as authentic Hindu scripture. Tell me what citation are you going to get for any Hindu scripture to be authentic? Is the general acceptance of all is in-sufficient for authenticity of a scripture? India was ruled by Britishers and India inherited present judiciary from British system, yet Hindu accused and witnesses are asked to swear in the name of "Srimad Bhagwad Geeta". from Britishers' time. What more do you want for authenticity of "Srimad Bhagwad Geeta" being an authentic Hindu scripture?

Your inclusion of Raj Yoga, a way to realise God is in-correct in my opinion. Raj Yoga is nothing but supplementary dictates of way to realise God. The way to realise God is divided in three methods, Jnan Yog, Karma Yog and Bhakti Yog. I will try to explain more about Raj Yog some other time.

I wish that you carefully consider and agree to remove in-correctly incorporated Raj Yoga from 3 ways of realising God as per Hindu doctrines.

Purans are stories and not considered to be scriptures. Purans are created to discipline way of righteous living for primitives and illiterates by instilling fear in them. No person will ever accept Puran as scripture, who can slightly understand Hinduism. "Srimad Bhagwad Geeta" is summary of dictates of Vedas.

Your arguments that the branches of Vedas is being duplicated here is not weighing. I may be able to point out number of things from the article as being duplicated, if I take some pain to scroll the pages.

I feel it would be more beneficial and appropriate to mention branches of Vedas in the article, however, some one can incorporate details elsewhere.

My earnest submission to you would be to keep your mind open for correction and bear with me for my sharp reactions to your removal of my edits and alleging my English to be poor. Let our views be free from egoistic personal beliefs in the interest of a neutral article. Swadhyayee 07:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee,

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. As already stated, I agree with most of what you say about the Gita, so there should be no argument. I will make 3 points about Raja Yoga:

1. Raja yoga--also called simply "yoga," "dhyana," or, in English, "the path of meditation"--is practiced by many Hindus, so we should not ignore it altogether.
2. It is described in many Hindu scriptures, books, and teachings (E.g., the classic Yoga Darshana (see the section on Hindu Philosophy), Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, Swami Vivekananda's Raja Yoga, etc.) so we cannot ignore it.
3. Even though the Gita is not the only authority recognized by most Hindus, it so happens that the Gita itself also recognizes the path of meditation. Even though the Gita does not use the exact word "Raja Yoga," preferring instead to just call it "yoga," the path of meditation has come to be called Raja Yoga in order to avoid confusion with the other yogas. For example, see Krishna's extensive discussion of this path at the end of Gita chapter V, and throughout all of chapter VI, and in other parts of the Gita as well.

If you want a disclaimer that "Not all Hindus believe in Raja Yoga, that is perfectly fine, but the article already contains a sentence stating that some Hindus only accept one or two of these paths, so I think that readers will understand that there exists some differnce of opinion. If the majority of other editors wish to remove Raja Yoga / meditation, then I will agree to do so. However, I suspect that they will not wish to remove it since many Hindus believe in it.HeBhagawan 17:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to HeBhagwan:

"Yog" means to join. The word "Yog" has originated from "Yuj" (Dhatu). I believe as per Hindu Shashtras there are only main 3 ways to realise God. 1) Jnan Yog 2) Karma Yog and 3) Bhakti Yog. Other terminologies are sub-divisions or further explanations. I will need more time to make it convincing to you that Raj Yog can not be incorporated with the 3 means of realisation of God as provided in Hindu Shashtras. You will see in Geeta "Karma Sanyas Yog" and other such terminologies. They are part of the main 3 means of realising God.

"Raj Yog" as explained by you and I understand is a method of meditation. I know, there is something wrong in incorporating "Raj Yog" as a seperate means of realising God or is different from main 3 means, Jnan, Karma and Bhakti. If, you re-look at Hindu Shashtras, there are only 3 means, Jnan, Karma and Bhakti. You are incorporating Raj Yog as a seperate entity along with these and only 3 means of realising God. I feel this to be absolutely in-correct. I hope, either you will realise this during your re-look or someone else will make it easy to understand the different view points between us. I don't mind even if you write commentary on any scripture but it's placing along with Jnan, Karma and Bhakti in inconsistent with Hindu doctrines. Jnan Yoga means to join with God by attaining mystical knowledge. Karma Yoga means to join God by doing Karmas without attachment or surrendering the fruits to The God from the stage of Sankalp. Whereas Bhakti Yoga means to join The God by means of Bhakti. You can explain Jnan, Karma and Bhakti, what will you explain for the term "Raj"? If you read Chapter IX of Srimad Bhagwad Geeta and note the names of other chapters like "Karma Sanyas Yog", "Karma Brahmarpan Yog", "Atma Sanyam Yog" and so on you will understand. Are you going to add these chapters because it has a tail of "Yog" at the end? Concentrate on three words Jnan, Karma and Bhakti being Updesh of Shashtras and meaning of Yog to remove your doubts. Swadhyayee 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

More on Raj Yog

Namaskar, I happen to be here while I saw some comments at the user bakaman's talk pages. I read the entire section above about removing Raj Yoga and more. I want to contribute here as I think only two of you are mainly discussing it. But before that, let me tell you that I shall try to be unbiased and maintain a NPOV. I will write here only with whatever amount of knowlegde I have about Hinduism. Hope you will take my comments in the right spirit, even though it might go against someone's edits.

There are indeed four ways to attain GOD in Hinduism. And they are Karm, Bhakti, Jnan and Yog. They themselves are referred sometimes as Karmyog, Bhaktiyog, Jnanyog and Rajyog. Yog when talked about separately in this context becomes Rajyog. Many people do not know it. If you define Yog as Join and being composed of Yuj dhatu, it is a literal meaning and though it is correct but it is somewhat loose. Yog is actually truely defined by Patanjali in his second sutra of the very first chapter of Yog Sutra. It goes like this: Yogah Chitti Vrittasya Nirodhah. Yog is the calming down of all the attributes (vritti) of the chitta. (plese note that my translation in English is very very loose wrt to the grand original meaning). The entire book then talks about the details of how to achive this, by means of asht margs (Yam, Niyam, Aasan, Pranayaam, Pratyahaar, Dharna, Dhayn, Samadhi). If we read the entire book, we will find that going through various stages of samadhis (sawikalp, nirvikalp, sabeej, nirbeej etc) in the end the sadhak finally reaches the stage where he is one with the GOD. All the vritties of the chitta has been calmed down and true Yoga has been achieved. Anyways, these are the details about Yoga itself. Lets discuss the main stuff here.

So, first, dear Swadhyayee, Rajyog (which is the same as Yog) must be there. Secondly regarding Srimadbhagvadgita, I think that there is no point of contention here. I do not see HeBhagwan denying the importance of it. Although it is a bit difficult, but if you ask Hindus to pick just one granth, they will have to pick Geeta and none other. Swami Vivekanand took Gita in the chicago dharm sansad, when other people came with their rev. books. It is said that Gita is the milk of (if) Upanishads (are cows). Most of the times, we will be concerned about Milk only. But sometimes, if need be, we might have to take care of the entire cow. That is what HeBhagwan was trying to say in my opinion. Vedas, Purans, Smritis, Yog Sutra, Brahm Sutra etc might have to be considered and referenced sometimes. So please do not ignore them completely. At the same time, even Gita has talked about the importance of Yog. The only thing is that it might not have used the term Rajyog. But believe me, when Yog is being referred in solitude, it is always Rajyog.

I hope my comments will only ignite discussion and no hard feelings among anyone. Dhanyawaad --APandey 08:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, i will have to say that you are taking things a bit too far. I appreciate that you do not accept Raj Yoga, but that doesnt mean you should stop others. --nids(♂) 10:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

To Mr.A.Pandey and Mr.Nidhishsinghal (& offcourse HeBhagwan),

I have heard about Raj Yog and Patanjali Yog Sutra, ofcourse I have not studied Patanjali Yog Sutra. As Mr.Pandey says, Geeta is considered to be milk of Upnishadas. I also told that Geeta is summary of Shashtras. My feeling is what one attain during Raj Yog is Jnan, which leads of merging of Atman with Brahman. My request to discuss were totally neglected though I put my request on Wikipedia profile Hinduism (?). Today, when I removed Raj Yog as it is a process of Dhyan Mr.Nidhish tell me that I am going too far. Check the dates of my edits. I am not eager to put my view, I am eager to remove wrong. Show me from any Shashtra that Hinduism state any other way then Jnan, Karma and Bhakti for sublimating of Atman to the stage of merging with Brahman. I am confident about what I am saying. To understand Karma, Bhakti and Jnan, one can classify it as way of living, which a person can live through out his life. I feel Jnan and Raj Yog can not be seperated and considere Raj Yog as a seperate entity. If, you can show me from Geeta that Raj Yog is referred at par with Karma, Bhakti and Jnan, I would accept it. Everyone here accept that Geeta is unquestionable Shashtra. There is not a sigle point of Hinduism which is not touched in Geeta. I feel it would not be correct to put Patanjali Yog Sutra at par with Geeta.

If Yog and Raj Yog is one then why Jnan, Bhakti and Karma are referred tp as Jnan Yog, Karma Yog and Bhakti Yog? I am not against Raj Yog. All I say is, Raj Yog is a process of Jnan Yog. What is the outcome of Raj Yog (Yam, Niyam etc.) , isn't it acquiring Jnan of mystical happenings and realising that I am not body, Manah: or Chittah: but Atma and I am The Brahman? Let Raj Yog be detailed under Jnan is my feeling.

Let's not compromise about our different views in making the article but let's understand the right perspective and incorporate it in the article.

I feel keeping silent during discussion and allowing one's disputed view un-altered is not in the interest of righteousness of the article. Swadhyayee 16:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Swadhyayee, I appreciate your feelings and efforts to put the right information about Hinduism in this article. But I have to repeat what I said. Rajyog is not (and can not be) a part of Jnan Yog. This is not because I or anyone else thinks. This is because it is. As far as explainnation about what will happen after the eight margs (Yam, Niyam etc) are mastered, as you know, all roads leads to thee. Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti. So I would not argue that the results will be different there. Even the end result of Bhakti and Karm are also the same. Isn't it? Being unified with the GOD, or Brahman or whatever name you want to call it. If you read Shankaracharya's biography, you will know that he started his learnings under his Guru, he learnt Hath Yog in year 1, Raj Yog in year 2 and Jnan Yog in year 3 and then came back. For a normal student, it takes years to learn these. You have asked for citations from Geeta. I think HeBhagwan has earlier pointed out something from some chapter. I will have to find out. But lets not obsessed with Geeta only. As I said earlier Geeta is considered the Saar of Upanishads, but there is no harm in seeing other stuff also. If you know about Prashtan-trayee, three granths are considered equivalent. These are Upanishads, Geeta and Brahm Sutra. Any one who wanted to establish their principles, they have to write commentary on these three to establish their view point. This is how Shakar, Ramanuj and others have done their work. Anyway, again these are very detailed topics. So please do not insist on Geeta only. Yog Sutra is also a very revered granth for Hindus. As far as citations from Geeta are concerned, I think that their must be something. Can you help me find out sections where Bhagwan talks about Jnan, Karm and Bhakti as the *only* three ways to reach HIM. I will try to find out something about RajYog from there. Thanks and happy researching. --APandey 17:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Give me some time, I will give chapters & Shlokas.Swadhyayee 01:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Apandey is correct. The term "raja yog" is used to distinguish this path from bhakti, jnan, and karma. The name is used for purposes of convenience, and many pandits and swamis also call it raja yog. He is also correct not to get obsessed with Geeta only since most Hinduism also includes Brahm Sutra, Bhagavat, and also commentaries by Shankaracharya, Ramanuj, and others. All these are included in Hinduism. It is a wonderful religion because it includes so much variety. Srimad Bhagavadgita never says "there are three paths alone and no other exists." If you try to limit Hinduism to one scripture only, or 3 paths only, it will no longer be Hinduism. RamRamji 19:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice that you just registered yesterday and commented to support Raj Yog as a way, seperate of Jnan Yog.Swadhyayee 01:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear RamRamji, Could you introduce yourself on your user page? No bad intentions, just a request.Swadhyayee 01:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Swayhyayee, With all due respect, please do not delete the Raja Yoga reference. You should not insist on imposing your personal view when other editors agree that it should remain. Let us collaborate in a democratic, cooperative manner, please. I agreed to delete the reference to Raja Yoga if a majority of editors wanted to do so, but so far all comments are in favor of retaining it. Are there any other editors who can comment on this? HeBhagawan 02:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Swadhyayee, While we are discussing the issue already here, why are you deleting the section on Rajyog? My dear friend, I do not want to start a controversy here and I want to respect everyone views, but that does not mean that others can force their views. Please do not take any of my comments personally, rather take them objectively in the interest of the article. Rajyog is an extremely important pillor in Hinduism and can not be ignored. There is no point repeating what I have already said before. Apart from researching Bhagvadgeeta for sections which state that "there are only three ways to reach GOD and they are Bhakti, Jnan and Karm", please also discuss with someone whom you consider as more knowledgeable in these matters. Sometimes it happens that we are so sure of our believes that we can not agree to the opposite. In that case, our discussion here might not satisfy you but a personal discussion with someone you know might be beneficial. I hope it helps. Thanks. --APandey 07:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr.A.Pandey,

Yes, I am going to talk to my elder brother who has studied philosophy and religious scriptures in detail for years together. One thing, no one is logically answering points raised by me and wish to maintain the article as it is which I feel contain mis-leading information and diplomatically allow the points raised by me to die down. A comment in support of Raj Yog came in the discussion page by someone who just got registered yesterday i.e. 7/10/2006, and just put only this comment. This sort of tactics to gain support are not fair. I am not removing elaboration of Raj Yog, I am simply removing Raj Yog from the place where Jnan, Karma and Bhakti are shown as way of life to realise God. I believe, Raj Yog should not be placed back until someone logically reason it's correctness. The discussion should be free from self supported tactics.Swadhyayee 12:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Gizza wrote: Namaskar HeBhagawan. It isn't POV to include both views at all. If you are referring to the "Raj Yoga" controversy, I think you should place a notice WT:INB here and send messages to everyone on this list and start a vote/organised discussion. Keep up the good work on the Hinduism article. I do not have much time to help because I have school exams coming up soon. I will just add my comments. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

He Bhagawan wrote: Gizza, thank you for your suggestions. I think that a vote/organized discussion is a good solution. We all want the same thing: an accurate and informative article, so this might be the best way to achieve it on the Raja Yoga point. HeBhagawan 13:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Swadhyayee, I have to take a tough stand now. You are not only pushing your POV but also being arrogant and making baseless allegations which are disgusting and disturbing for me. I have just concluded some edit wars at Jana Gana Mana, Vande Mataram, Hindi etc pages where I have proved my point using citations and references. There I was very tough on vandalisers because mine and their goals were different. When I came to Hindusim for editing (after seeing your comments on bakaman's talk pages as I told you before), I took an extremely soft way because I knew that people here are there for a common purpose. But my soft stand is probably being taken as my weakness by you. So I have to assert myself.

Let me tell you that removing information from wikipedia without citing proper reasons (with sources and references) comes under vandalism and thats what you have been doing for the last few times when you are removing Rajyog from the list of multiple ways etc. HeBhagwan have provided you references and I asked you to provide sections from Bhagwadgeeta about your claims. You have not done that yet. Just because you think that Rajyog is not separate and should be a part of Jnanayog, it will not happen so. To me (and for that matter to anyone with basics in these matter), it is as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4. You said that we are changing topics and not answering your questions. Tell me which of your important questions are not answered here.

And most importantly, I am taking a strong exception to the fact that you are linking me with some new user and alleging me of forming support groups. Let me tell you that I do not need a support group for editing wikipedia. Go and see the talk pages of Jana Gana Mana in which indeed I have almost single handedly fought with a fanatic support group for the cause of Hindi and our national anthem. And as far as this new user is concerned, why do you think it is not possible for someone to come and immediately comment on a dicussion on Hindusim. Your comments linking me and the new user are not only derogatory for me but also for the new user. You must apologize for that. I will take this matter to admins if you continue making baseless allegations about non-relevant topics here. This is the talk page of Hinduism, lets just discuss Hinduism here and nothing else.

I am reverting back your changes in the article. It is you who have to provide citations before deleting any text from the article. With all due respect to my beloved Lord Krishna, your clinging to Geeta is not correct when you are talking about a religion as vast as Hinduism. And even from that you have not been able to provide references. Please be mature my dear friend. Good luck and happy editing. Thanks --Apandey 13:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Abhishek Pandey,

I fail to understand, who do you think yourself to be to say that you will take tough stand and have been obliging me by taking soft stand. Pl. mind your language. I have never I have never linked you to the new user. My statement was in general and I stand by my statement that supporting Raj Yog is self supported tactic and you could report to admin and let him varify. In all probability, if he is able to varify IP address, I will stand vindicated.

Who is arrogant me or you? Just read my comments and your comments. Your edit on Jana Gana Mana does not make you superior over any other person. What right do you have to show yourself obliging others or are superior to others simply because you joined 5 to 6 months and edited some of the articles?

What is your right to claim that citation of HeBhagawan of Patanjali Yogsutra is superior to the knowledge of general fact of Srimad Bhagwad Geeta's doctrine of Jnan, Karma and Bhakti?

I have already cited reasons to remove Raj Yog in talk pages and which is known to you and HeBhagawan.

Pl. don't use this language ever. Swadhyayee 14:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan said: Everybody, please be kind and respectful

To Swadhyayee: I believe that I have already supported what I said with (1) logic, (2) citations, and (3) comments by other users. I have even offered suggestions for ways to incorporate your claim that some Hindus do not believe that Raja Yoga / meditation is a path to moksha, but not to the exclusion of other views. To be quite honest, you are the first Hindu I have ever known to make this argument. When opinion x and opinion y are in conflict, the way to resolve the matter is to find a way to express both opinions; not to simply delete opinion x, as you have done. Of course, there should be at least some initial evidence to show that a significant number of persons (and definately more than one person) supports each view before it should be included at all.

I have tried to work for a compromise that all can agree with. You do not seem to be reading carefully what other editors have written. You do not seem to have read the entire Hinduism article before making deletions, since your deletions upset the organization of the rest of the article. I do not wish to re-state all the same points again. For further logical reasoning, which you accuse me of not using, please re-read our entire discussion on this page. I do not wish to continually repeat it.HeBhagawan 14:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I request users of this page to view this section on arguments about whether to include Rajyog or not. Please see my language and the language of other people who are threatening me and making baseless allegations while also pusing their POVs without citations. Please also see this where this particular user is warning me about my age etc in response to my comments on his talk page, which was here. This is certainly a personal attack. The user needs to be told that age is not a factor in editing wikipedia while knowledge is. As a matter of fact there are many wikipedia admins who are still in their teens. Having said that, I am also going to revert the article again. If the user Swadhyayee reverts my edits and vadalise the article again, that will be the violation of 3RR rule. I am warning him here in advance not to break 3RR. As far as citations are concerned, this talk page still needs to see the citations from Srimadbhagvadgeeta (or from any other such sources) which claims that there are only three ways to reach GOD in Hinduism and they are Bhakti, Jnan and Karm. Thanks. --Apandey 14:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, from the above comment of the user Swadhyayee I have never linked you to the new user. My statement was in general and I stand by my statement that supporting Raj Yog is self supported tactic and you could report to admin and let him varify. In all probability, if he is able to varify IP address, I will stand vindicated.; I challenge any user or Admin to show here a connection between me and any of the other users of this page (including HeBhagwan, and the once only editor Ramramji) by means of IP address or whatever. These baseless allegations need to cease with immediate effect and I believe some admin has to intervene here. Thanks --Apandey 15:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee & APandey,

I have posted messages for the other Hinduism project editors, requesting them to read the discussion on this page and to make comments. Hopefully this can resolve the issue. Please stop editing in order to give them a chance to reply. I hope the comments of other editors can help us to resolve this in a democratic manner. If this does not resolve the issue, however, it may be necessary to appeal to the admins. Thank you. HeBhagawan 15:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To all editors

Accusing other users of being socks (especially within our own Hindu brotherhood) is stupid. At least be civil. Arguing is best served for when anti-Hindu garbage seeps into the article, rather than when there is merely a trivial argument on types on yoga.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To Everyone I checked the history of Jana Gana Mana and Vande Mataram also discussion pages. The participation in edits or discussion by Abhishek Pandey is not as he claimed in his first un-controlled comments and certainly not on later dates. Why should we divide the editors as Hindu or Anti-Hindu here? If a group of people are supporting any particular view as it to be seen as support of majority, the group is sock puppeteer.Swadhyayee 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee Are you satisfied for the article to include the following disclaimer?

Some Hindus advocate Raja yoga as a path in its own right, while others practice it as a supplement to bhakti yoga, karma yoga, or jnana yoga.

I should think that this statement would make everyone happy.HeBhagawan 16:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagwan, I am sorry to say that I would not agree to that. Some Hindus think that Yoga is rubbish, or lots of people think Yoga just means physical exercise. Can we put those thoughts here. Certainly not. Then why this compromise with truth. Let there be no compromise with truth to accomodate a particular user's ignorance and pushing of POV. Truth alone will win in the end (Satyamev Jayate).

And I am warning Swadhyayee again for using the term sock puppeteer. This is personal attack and goes against the spirit of wikiepdia. Thanks. --Apandey 16:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: For anybody who wants to get a general idea regarding whether raja yoga is widely accepted by many Hindu denominations, pandits, and swamis, just do a quick Google search on four yogas, or on raja yoga. Then do a search on something like "raja yoga false." Of course, Google searches do not constitute conclusive evidence of anything, but doing this can give you a general idea. HeBhagawan 17:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism is Inclusive
I'm stunned that there would be any attempt to remove Raja Yoga from Hinduism. If someone were trying to make Christianity to be an important part of Hinduism, that would be one thing. But Raja Yoga? This really raises the question of 'what is Hinduism?' I think the question is answered in other articles on Wikipedia, such as Hinduism:

Hinduism looks to a large number of religious texts developed over many centuries that contain spiritual insights and provide practical guidance for religious life.

and Raja Yoga:

Raja yoga is also known as Ashtanga Yoga. The term Ashtanga means eight limbs, thus Ashtanga Yoga refers to the eight limbs of yoga. It is the classical Indian system of Hindu philosophy and practice (composed by Patanjali perhaps ca. 200 BCE)

Hinduism has stayed live over the centuries because proponents like Patanjali have added to the understanding of what is Hinduism. I strongly disagree that there should be ANY disclaimer next to Raja Yoga, unless there is a disclaimer next to every other aspect of Hinduism - since there will always be some subset of Hinduism (or some individual) that doesn't believe or practice a particular aspect of Hinduism. ॐ Priyanath 18:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyee, is partially correct. Raja yoga is the path of meditation, as a way to achieve God realization. But the path of meditation was difficult for even great persons such as Arjuna so bhakti yoga is more recommended for the Kali yuga. see, http://www.jswami.info/raja_yoga

http://www.vedanta.org/wiv/practice/yogas/raja.html

Raj2004 21:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Raj2004 for providing your views. We are not in disagreement about Raja yoga being the path of meditation. The part user Swadhyayee is not accepting is that, it is also a way to achieve realization. That is where the disconnect is. We all are agreeing that it stands at the same place as Bhakti, Jnan and Karm, but he *thinks* it should be a sub part of Jnana. As far as difficulty is concerned, your views are correct but then again, the disconnect is not there. Thanks. --Apandey 21:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Abhishek Pandey, you are mis-understanding me and mis-quoting me, I have never said, I do not accept Raj Yoga is a way to achieve realization. I say that it is not be-fitting with Jnan, Karma and Bhakti Yoga as these 3 are sciences and Raj Yoga is a process to discipline mind and body for a session to meditate. Swadhyayee 02:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, I have a suggestion: Why don't you help to edit other issues in the Hinduism Project? Let us leave the Raja Yoga issue. I was willing to accomodate you by putting a disclaimer, but it seems that other editors do not want to do even that. I felt compelled to report you to the admins because of your unfounded reversions, but I will gladly withdraw my report if you can put your efforts toward improving the article. There are so many things that need to be improved. Consider working on the Bhagavad Gita section, since you have great interest in that, and I think you will be able to find citations. I will try to find citations for the things you mentioned on the talk page. For a few of those things, a single citation is meant to cover multiple sentences. Thanks! HeBhagawan 03:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear HeBhagawan, I take both, your suggestions and reporting to admin through Mr.Chris in good spirit. Hope you have seen my copy pasting of an annonymous request under IP address to someone drawing attn. to Raj Yog controversy. If the actions are backed by honest intentions, there was no need to make this annonymous request. What will you gain by banning me? I am happy that louder the issue, better the response. Frankly, I would not be so strong in my protests if I was weak. What is the guarantee that you will not behave in the same fashion, if I suggest to remove other wrongs? Hope you must have seen my comments on plenty of claims devoid of citation in just 1st few paras of Hinduism. I feel, you will prefer to keep silent when you will not have an answer. I can see your dedication in making a good article on Hinduism which would make me happier being a Hindu. I want the article should be as far as possible free from distorted facts. I do not want you to oblige me and withdraw the report, I want it to be blown out suitably, so justice will be done to the cause. To me Raj Yog issue is not an issue of prestige so I can think of compromising to gain your permission to edit elsewhere. We all learn and improve our thinking by this type of debate and war. At the end of any event, one has to come out as a sporty editor. I shall certainly do so and wish you and A.Pandey do the same. I repeat, I am taking your suggestions and reporting sportily and I am sure, I can deal with the situation even against many. It will be a matter of time. At no stage, you have objected to A.Pandey's arrogance as he was being coconut of The Holi. You should show the honesty in thinking that we are a minute part of this project and universe and not owner of the project or Wikipedia. It helps us to be modest when people don't allow our POV to be incorporated but asking for citations for facts of general knowledge and not prepared to understand the debate is kiddish. I am not sure the voters had cared to go in to my reasoning against Raj Yog.

Assuring you of my sportsman spirit in the debate.

Swadhyayee 04:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Propose to take a vote

This discussion is getting very heated. Can we take a vote on whether to include Raj Yoga?

Support

1. I vote yes, to keep it as there are 4 yogas. Chris 15:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Of course I vote yes, to keep mention of 4 yogas.HeBhagawan 15:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
3. I vote yes, to keep all four yogas together. Apandey 16:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Yes, there are Four Yogas. This broad classification is a well accepted fact. Apnavana 17:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Yes.nids(♂) 18:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Yes, of course, and with no disclaimer (see comments above). ॐ Priyanath 18:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. utcursch | talk 12:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Per Swami Shivananda I have to say there are four.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I am against it. Raj Yog has no place with Jnan, Karma and Bhakti.Swadhyayee 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
2. I am against it. However, I am also against including Jnana, Karma and Bhakti. Saiva suj 16:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments after the Vote

Considering this overwhelming consensus, I think it is only right to include the four traditional yogas of Hinduism in this main Hinduism article. Any further removal of Raj Yoga should be considered as vandalism. I have never heard such a silly contraversy created by a single person on such an important Wikipedia article. Chris 00:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please would the above 6 voters note the ridiculous changes made yesterday viewable on this history page? All ISBN numbers were removed from references. Images were removed. Even good grammar was changed to bad grammar. I think this is very very serious vandalism. The entire article has been harmed beyond simply the 4 yogas. I propose that we revert to the page as it was prior to the above changes made yesterday. I know this will lose some valuable changes made in the last 24 hours by others, but this appears to me to be a serious crisis until this one editor is banned. Please give me feedback before I do such a drastic reversion to how the article was prior to recent chaos. Without such a reversion, I fear it will take months to get the article back to the excellent state it was in the day before yesterday (6 October 2006). Chris 01:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Chris, I have not made any other changes than Raj Yoga or a controversial follow-up, if the others preferred to keep Raj Yoga at the same place. I was also not aware about the votes as I was offline. Will you see my comments of the day and see the reasoning? Before branding me Vandal, I will expect you to understand the difference between Raj Yog and other Yogas. The terminology confuse as each end with Yoga. Hope you will see the timings of my edit and timings of votings. Also care should be exercised that the voting is not sock puppetry.Swadhyayee 02:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this annonymous request under IP address could be suspected to be sock puppetry? '"Dear Hinduism Project editors,

There is a controversy on the Hinduism regarding Raja Yoga. Please read the debate on the Hinduism discussion page. Your comments are requested on the Hinduism discussion page to help resolve the controversy. Thank you. 68.239.78.172 15:04, 8 October 2006 "Swadhyayee 03:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, I have a suggestion: Why don't you help to edit other issues in the Hinduism Project? Let us leave the Raja Yoga issue. I was willing to accomodate you by putting a disclaimer, but it seems that other editors do not want to do even that. I felt compelled to report you to the admins because of your unfounded reversions, but I will gladly withdraw my report if you can put your efforts toward improving the article. There are so many things that need to be improved. Consider working on the Bhagavad Gita section, since you have great interest in that, and I think you will be able to find citations. I will try to find citations for the things you mentioned on the talk page. For a few of those things, a single citation is meant to cover multiple sentences. Thanks! HeBhagawan 03:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris, Thank you for helping to fix Swadhyayee's vandalism. I have looked over the things that were changed, and I think that the reversion you made is a net loss for the page. It was a good idea generally, but after looking at which things were changed, I am convinced that whichever things were fixed by the reversionn, they are outweighed by the things that were lost, due to some good edits in the past 24 hours. My suggestion is for you to revert it back to your prior edit, and we can just go through and fix any damage this user has done on a case-by-case basis. HeBhagawan 02:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Support #8 from Bakaman: This sort of exemplifies my point: all of our true references will be coming from such saints as the no doubt great Swami Sivananda, etc. but this is the problem of including teachings like that in Hinduism, because Swami Sivananda taught Vedanta. We all know that this is Hinduism, but it is not the whole. Why must we only explain these teachings in Hinduism? Saiva suj 16:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Where there is a major split of opinion, we should present both sides. The trick is to keep the article at a reasonable length, but my opinion is that if there is a major disagreement on something, both views should be presented. Of course, each side should present some citations to show that their views are not idiosyncratic. And scholarly sources should be cited as well whenever possible. HeBhagawan 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we consider to put branches of Vedas in the article?

Thanks HeBhagwan for incorporating "A-Paurushey" and "Parampara", could you as well please incorporate branches of Vedas in your language?

Swadhyayee 17:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swadhyayee, I'm very busy at the moment, so I don't have time to write a complete reply. I will try to incorporate branches of the Vedas soon. If another person would like to do so, they are also welcome. Everybody: One thing we really need to improve is the "History" section. Thousands of years are unaccounted for!HeBhagawan 19:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, I find "A-Paurusheya" and "Parampara" removed after my comments. I am not able to find out who did it? I am finding some changes don't reflect in history. How? Swadhyayee 01:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have incorporated some of Swadhyayee's suggestions regarding the branches of the Vedas into the section on "Classification of Scriptures." There is still more work to be done, but what do you think so far? HeBhagawan 03:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the word "Salvation" appropriate?

I would like editors to think, whether the word "Salvation" used in Jnan Yog is appropriate? Jnan Yog is a way leading to mystical understanding and thus freeing oneself from the state of "Karta" and realising that "Atman" and "Brahman" is one.

Could the word "Salvation" be replaced by some better word?

Swadhyayee 01:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. Salvation is a good word to use in the context of false religions interpretations, but has really no place in sanatan Dharma.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Salvation" could be replaced by "liberation," lekin mere vichār mein koī badā fark nahīn padtā. Either word is fine. HeBhagawan 02:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd think either salvation or liberation is fine, but I'd say the meaning of these words are slightly different. Bakaman, may I ask what you mean when you refer to false religions? Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 03:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant false interpretations. ex. (what wendy doniger thinks of Hinduism and what pat robertson says about it)Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Realisation Anubhuti may be the appropriate one. − Apnavana 17:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am for Liberation or Salvation, over Realization in Hinduism. I am not certain that dualists would refer to it as Realization, but instead a liberation from samsara. Saiva suj 20:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Avatars

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

Agreed. Please incorporate some of these avatars into the article, or make suggestions on this page. Or, if you think it would be too confusing to mention many avatars, we could include them on the "avatara" article. Your choice. Thanks for the help! HeBhagawan 03:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversion Wars

Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in blocks being implemented due to violations of the three revert rule. Instead of performing pure reverts, disputing persons should cooperatively seek out methods of compromise, or alternative methods of statement. While edits made in collaborative spirit involve considerably more time and thought than reflexive reverts, they are far more likely to ensure both mutually satisfactory and more objective articles. In the case of less experienced contributors, who have unknowingly made poor edits, reversion by two or more people often demonstrates that such reversions are probably not fundamentalistic or in bad faith, but instead closer to an objective consensus.

High-frequency reversion wars make version histories less useful, make it difficult for uninvolved users to contribute in a meaningful fashion, and flood recent changes sections and watchlists. Low-frequency reversion wars, while still problematic, do not tend to cause the Wikipedia community as many problems. HeBhagawan 15:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I share your concerns. I feel sock puppeteer edits would take the differences to war. Swadhyayee 15:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The admin Gizza who was probably keeping an eye on this page is on a wikibreak hence we are not getting enough help from admin. Is there any other admin around? Swadhyayee even after my warning and asking for citations for his claims, is still engaged in putting out of context details in the article's page. I just saw individual articles on Bhakti yoga, Raja Yoga, Karma yoga and Jnana yoga, of which I have edited none ever. All four unanimously claim that these four are the paths to attain Moksha and that the final outcome is the same. Rajyog is kept at the same level by all four articles. Then why this POV is being pushed. The current edits of Swadhyayee are out of sync. They not only lack citation (which chapter of Geeta says so?), but also destroy the asthetic beauty of that section. I will revert the article again. And I am again warning user Swadhyayee to not engage in a baseless edit war until he can prove his point using citations and references. Thanks --Apandey 15:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

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

There are other new users(IPs) who are making improper edits. Like Brahman => Brahma and so on. Please discuss first on the talk page what you are trying to do. --Apandey 16:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There are lot of claims without citations in the article.

There are lot of claims without citations in the article that suits to some of the editors. Some of the editors ask for citations for the facts of general knowledge of any Hindu and remove additions to the article.

For example, The following claims are devoid of citations. 1)Claims in 1st para of the article 2) Claims between Ref. 8 & 9, although Hindus have clerical hierarchy of Shankaracharyas. 3) Claims in core concepts 4) The Hindu scriptural canon is not closed. 5) Hindus do not concern themselves much about whether the stories found in scriptures are accurate from a historical perspective... 6) Hindu sages in contrast with Judeo-Christain and Muslim prophets..., although Bhagavat contain predictions of Kalyug and elaborate birth of tinies etc. and Pralay. 7) they are more concerned with two things 1) teaching mystical things..... 8) The experience of divinity that can give one true peace..... 9) Bhakti-Yoga is prescribed for people of emotional temperaments...

Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga and Jnan Yoga is a way of life where as Raj Yoga is discipling body and mind for a session which may successfully last for few seconds to few hours or days. Yet they are merged together and not allowed either to be segregated from one another or allowed to be followed by clarifying comments, in the name of citations needed.

My objections are not against for claim of result of Raj Yoga but my objections are for placing them together simply because each term end with Yoga. To me, Bhakti, Karma and Jnan is subject of science where as Raj Yoga is training of mind and body.

Well those who ask for citations to my edits have to read Srimad Bhagwad Geeta in entirety which they may not want to do and just seek citations to remove my edits.

Is this befitting NPOV policy? Will the concerned editors exhibit honesty in thinking? Swadhyayee 02:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, citations are good even for matters of common knowledge. The reason is that what may be common knowledge for Hindus may not be common knowledge for non-Hindus. If there is a citation, then in case a person wishes to learn more about a particular point, he or she can go to the library, bookstore, or website and find the particular book for further research. Also citations help to prevent POV assertions. Although citations don't prevent POV assertions completely, they do help. The reason is that a citation is evidence that at least somebody other than the editor believes the assertion. As you have noticed, I am steadily working to increase the citations on the Hinduism page. Any help would be appreciated. HeBhagawan 13:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

New Books!

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

Vandalism

Thanks Chris, HeBhagwan and everyone for your efforts. The article even after so much of discussion, is still being vandalised by one user. I propose we block this user from further edits on this article. I will not respond to any of his alleagations now because that will be below my dignity. All other editors on this page have also expressed their views. This is the height of vandalism. A user, just because he thinks certain things are in certain ways is pushing his POV. When citations and logic are provided, he is not willing to read them. When citations, logic are asked, he is not willing to provide except for the fact that "I think so", "I feels so" etc. And as if that was not enough, he is also alleging people for being sock puppet etc. which is highly derogatory. He must be blocked from this page to prevent further vandalism. And many thanks to HeBhagwan for providing so many references and continually making effort to make it a good article. Thanks. --Apandey 08:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For the information: There is no edit in last 24 hours for disputed issue. I have already approached admn. board to review the situation. I have also raised my doubt of sock puppetry. I don't know who can take the risk of blocking me without varifying the correctness of allegations of Vandalism? Swadhyayee 12:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, you should first accept that you have consensus against you. In such cases, you must source your claims excellently: if you provide watertight evidence, policy will of course trump incidential consensus, but so far you have really done nothing to substantiate your position. Edits like this one may not be malicious, but of such poor quality that they are worse than worthless. See also my post to User talk:DaGizza: your first concern will be to improve the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali and Raja Yoga articles, which are very poor at the moment. dab (ᛏ) 14:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Apandey - Lay off. Raja yoga/jnan yoga/etc are so far from the mainstream (Bhaja Govindam/Raghupati Raghav/Balaji) Hinduism that its not such a big issue. Save your anger for the Anti-Hindu editors.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to swadhyayee - Per Sivananda (whos a respected Swami and not some creepy Indologist trying to mess with dharma) there are four yogas. Many other sources can attest to this. I think I will have to agree with dab here and say that you should improve the Swadhyay Parivar, Raja yoga and other articles you are interested in. Its a shame to see your knowledge used for fighting. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Bakasuprman,

While appreciating your efforts to mediate, I say that I have no study in Patanjali Yog Sutra. If, I have to improve Raj Yoga, I have first to study Patanjali Yog Sutra. I have not studied Sanskrut and my knowledge is based on discourses and reading of Geeta and other books in my mother tounge. To understand me about Raj Yog controversy, one has to have study of Geeta. Since you have given a reference, I am understanding the view points of others. This is not a fight to establish supremacy. It's a supplementary discussion to incorporate truth. Unfortunately, the im-temperamental language of some of the editors and their haste has given the discussion ugly turn. I am less sort of a person who could be bullied. The worst is the person like dab is adding fuel to the fire by commenting that my edits were worse than worthless. It's no way to discuss and mediate. You have also dis-agreed with me but you have done it in appropriate manner. Anyway, I find your use of word "shame" in-appropriate. I still feel that I have valid points. Every one has cited Patanjali Yog Sutra and no one has cited Geeta in support of their claim. I am sure, HeBhagawan understands the validity of my view point but desires the article to be as it is. It takes time to find citation, I will provide citation when I get it. Till now, I was under impression that I have to provide an internet link which was discouraging me. Anyway, thanks for the interest.

Regarding Swadhyay Parivar, it has turned into a criminal organisation under guise of religious organisation. Though, I know a lot about it, I can't glorify them or condemn beyond limit.Swadhyayee 02:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And Jnana yoga is meant for the rational person.

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

I pray to all the devas and devis that we may simply work to improve the article and not start another debate about whether one yoga is superior to another. HeBhagawan 02:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan,

There is no point of one yoga superior over other. I am asking for proper understanding of Jnan Yoga, if you agree with me.Swadhyayee 02:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee I have no clue what "people with high spiritual quest" means. HeBhagawan 02:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

People with high spiritual quest means people who can not stay without taking recourse to Jnan Yog. It's a condition like pre-sneeze where a person can not remain without sneezing. Swadhyayee 03:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee Are you trying to say "there are some who feel irresistably drawn to Jnana Yoga?" If this is what you are trying to say, I think it goes without saying. I think readers will understand this without there being any need to add a sentence stating it. Of course, some people will feel irresistably drawn to other yogas as well--that is how many people decide which one to follow. HeBhagawan 03:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, only irresistance drive one to select the path of realising God be it Karma, Jnan or Bhakti. The irresistance is due to the imprints upon mind and intellect of previouse births and increase while pursuing the same in present birth. But no one without quest for understanding mystics take recourse to Jnan Yog. I feel if not significant, there is minute difference.Swadhyayee 04:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that all the four yogas are just equivalent. Period. Look at Shankarachayra. Normally he looks like the biggest Jnanayogi ever, but if we read his devotional writings, there is so much Bhakti in those which is just unparalled in Hinduism. He was as much jnanayogi as much bhakt. If we go by the legends that he was able to put his body for rest and enter a dead body (the king Amruth's story, if I am not wrong) and then come back later to his own body, then he appears to have tremendous power as a Rajyogi also.

Similarly in the modern context, Swami Ram Krishna Paramansa, who was undoubtedly a person with very very high spiritual quest preferred the path of Bhaktiyog for himself after he experienced all the different paths and understood that all paths are leading to the same destination. Thanks. --Apandey 05:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Karma & Reincarnation.

Hope I don't enter into another heated controversy. I have heard the term reincarnation being used for birth of God in human form. I shall be grateful, if some one please tell whether reincarnation could be used for re-birth of a human being?

Under Karma & Reincarnation, it is stated,

"If we regularly perform good actions, we will develop good tendencies. If we do bad things, we will develop bad tendencies, which naturally can cause bad things to happen in our lives. Since Hinduism believes in reincarnation, it follows that our actions in this life can determine what kind of tendencies we will be born with in subsequent lives."

Should it be suitably amended as it is not good actions, it is good or bad motives behind an action that develop respective tendencies? Pandurang Shashtri Athavale used to explain this as, "If, a well is dug keeping in mind the next elections where the doer wants to stand and win the election" though the action of constructing a well in water striving village is a good action but not with good motives can not give rise to good tendencies whether in this birth or subsequent births. A good action with bad motives can not create good imprints in mind or intellect.

Whereas he used to tell further, that an action of mother's beating her child is bad but motives may be good, so it should be considered to be a good action.Swadhyayee 07:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no view was expressed by any editors, I have suitably edited the article. Editors are requested not to revert my edits without discussing.Swadhyayee 14:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Hinduism teaches that the soul goes on repeatedly being born and dying. One is reborn on account of desire: a person desires to be born because he or she wants to enjoy worldly pleasures, which can be enjoyed only through a body.[45]"

In Hinduism, the nature of desire leads to re-birth in appropriate kind of body viz. to satisfy a particular type of Vasana or enjoy particular Vishay, a re-birth not necessarily be in human form, it could be appropriate animal form where the desire could be thoroughly satisfied.

There are more than one reason for re-births, I think it is four and I shall narrate it later.Swadhyayee 07:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Swad : Certainly there is more that can be said about reincarnation. I like what Pandurang Shashtri Athavale said. Perhaps such additional details should be put in the reincarnation article so that the Hinduism article does not become excessively long.

Swadhyayee has added the following paragraph to what was already written in the section on Reincarnation:

As per Hinduism doctrines, the immortal soul leaves the body and the soul accepts new body in accordance with Karmas and Desires of previous birth/births. Intellect and mind move along with the soul and so the new body exhibit tendencies of previous birth/births ( i.e. pious, evil, selfish, vengeful, selfless, noble etc.) and also reflect same intellectual level. Further, humans only possess the developed intellect (ability to think and assess) and the human body possesses necessary limbs (Karmendriyas)[ ability to speak, hear, read and do actions by hands ] to carry out actions leading to realisation of God, so the humans must endeavour to merge with The Infinite. When a person fail to merge with The Infinite, the sublimated intellect and mind move along with The Soul in each life and usually The Soul get human body to carry on journey of merging with The Infinite in subsequent births. This doctrines imbibe in Hindus to be alert in the matter of journey towards The Infinite and involve in such actions which if fail to merge the soul with The Infinite after the death, at least reward with next life as humans.

I don't have any particular disagreement with anything you have said in the above paragraph, Swadhyayee. However, my opinion is that it would be better to do the following 3 things:

1. Polish the language to make it clearer and more concise, and fix grammatical errors,
2. Try to find citations if possible, and
3. Move the paragraph to the reincarnationarticle since it probably provides more detail than is necessary on the subject of reincarnation for the Hinduism page. (You could also include something on the reincarnation page about the distinction between good actions and good intentions.

The Hinduism page is already pretty long, and it will be even longer after we include History and Festival sections, so some of the intricately detailed discussions should be moved to their own pages. Note also that Swadhyayee's paragraph contains statements that seem a little bit redundant with the rest of the "Karma and Reincarnation" section. What do others think? HeBhagawan 16:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC) HeBhagawan 14:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan,

You have all justification to prevent the article that suits you. Pl. don't revert and wait for a day or two. I shall prefer to seek intervention of admins.Swadhyayee 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Swad For what are you seeking intervention of admins? Also, I don't know what your first sentence means. Regards, HeBhagawan 17:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we are going to start a new controversy. First of all, thanks to HeBhagwan and Swadhyayee, the article is going so many revisions in every few hours, that for people like me, it is difficult to keep track :-) However I will like to say a few things here. First of all, all the three points raised above by HeBhagwan are valid in my opinion. With all due respect to editors, I am specifically worried about the grammatical correctness, which I am not able to see in some of the edits. This MUST be avoided. Secondly, moving the sections to their separate pages is also needed because this article has really grown very long. This I would recommend Reincarnation for sure and also for some other sections. For example, the entire division of Yoga, after mentioning and then providing brief descrption of each Yoga (Bhakti, Karma, Jnana and Raja) has too much information on these. We already have separate articles on each of these Yogas. We should move all the details of indiviual yogas in those respective articles IMHO.

As regarding intervention of admins, I do not understand the point at all. This is nice threat however. I liked it. I am happy if any admin intervenes and educate all the editors here with wikipedia ways of doing things.

Regarding Reincarnation <=> Rebirth discussion below. I would say, no need to change to rebirth. Reincarnation is not ambiguous. Even the dictionary meaning of reincarnation talks about the same. I have not heard reincarnation being linked with second or subsequent Avatar of God ever (well, that might be my ignorance also). --Apandey 18:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan & A.Pandey

I have regards for your efforts to make this article. I am also supplementing with bonafide inputs to give right connotations of Hinduism. My feeling is you are trying to monopolise the article by reproducing certain books and hence, you dis-approve my creative additions. I have listened to discourses on Srimad Bhagwad Geeta and Upnishads for more than 20 yrs. On one pretext or another, you are trying to see that my inputs are removed. This is a free software which can be edited by anyone. Those who do not want others to edit their articles have no place in Wikipedia. I have already referred the matter to mediation committee. Then there are advocates for interventions and ultimately owner of Wikipedia. I will take the matter to the last person, if you try to prevent me from improving the articles. You have told me that my English is poor. You are suggesting me to edit other articles. You are telling me to correct my grammatical errors. If you check my edits of the day, you will see that I have corrected grammatical errors of other editors. Pl. be modest and accept that you can not monopolise this article. I shall not tolerate any wrong. I think you will stop suggesting me what I should do and what not. Swadhyayee 18:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC) (emphasis added by HeBhagawan 19:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC) without comment)

HeBhagawan,

Pl. don't change my comments. I don't think you have right to do so. Hope you remember your own objection when I edited your user page. You had complained to a third party. Everything I have written is equally important to me and nothing should be converted to block writing.Swadhyayee 19:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, you are right when you say that you will not tolerate any wrong. You must not. At the same time, you should not do any wrong either. I was referring to atleast [1], [2] and [3] when I pointed out about grammatical correctness. Some of the edits in these are either unwanted, or incorrect IMO. But here the problem is bigger. Since you have listened to discourses on Bhagvadgeeta for 20+ years, so you have decided that you would not listen to anything else. What value you are adding to this discussion when you are continually telling people about your age (i.e. seniority) and your listening to discourses on Bhagvadgeeta (on this page or other talk pages). You are welcome to move to any admin, mediation comittee, advocates or owners. For your information, there is no owner of wikipedia. It is a contribution system which runs by the cooperative contribution of all users.

IMHO you are a person with lots of enthusiasm to contribute to wikipedia but you have not got your basics right. Please consider reading introductory and welcome pages of wikipedia. This is a friendly advice not a critism of your efforts. Thanks. --Apandey 19:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Abhishek for your friendly and warm advise and correcting me. I was referring to Mr.Jimmy Donall Wales, The Founder and Chair of The Board of Trustees of Wikipedia Foundation. I have seen him blocking editors. Pl. leave me alone. Swadhyayee 19:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Swadhyayee. I did it that way so that it would be your language making the point rather than mine. But if you prefer I will do it this way: Swadhyayee criticized the other Hinduism Project editors for:

1. Supporting their edits with citations, rather than making "creative additions" as he does.
2. For stating disagreements with him on the discussion page (which is a pillar of Wikipedia).
3. For suggesting that he correct his grammatical errors. I quote: You have told me that my English is poor. You are suggesting me to edit other articles.
4. For suggesting alternative methods of organizing an article.
5. For encouraging him to incorporate at least some citations into his edits, which he has not done even once.

I rest my case. HeBhagawan 19:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan,

Hope we stop here as it becomes indecent. Check your first comment to me. My feeling is you might be violating copy rights. My link to news-paper has been removed by someone under copy right point. I am not interested that substantial material from this article get removed under copy right violation. I request you to stop here arguing in the matter of mediation etc. If, we have to talk anything for article, we will talk. I have pointed out your initial paras without citation and for which you have no reply. I am going through entire article and shall raise citation points, if you are keen of citations for widely known Hindu doctrines.Swadhyayee 19:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee If you think there is a copyright problem, I am certainly willing to listen to what you have to say, but you need to be more specific. Also, regarding citations, see my note at the bottom of this talk page.

Regarding the "Karma and Reincarnation" section, you have modified the language of other users in this section in a way that has introduced grammatical errors that did not exist before. I hate to say this, becasue I appreciate your earnestness, but I have to agree with the user who pointed out that your edits sometimes reduce the quality of article rather than enhance it. I am sorry if you feel offended by this, but becasue of your level of English, I recommend that you seek the review of native-level English speakers before posting your edits. I do not say this to insult you. If you are honest with yourself I think you will understand what I am saying. I have no desire to exclude you from editing, but I do have a desire to protect the quality of the article. I am sorry if you feel hurt by anything I said. HeBhagawan 03:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan,

I don't say that there is copy right violation. The article goes in tens of pages. In all probability, some of the text would be written as it is from some books as the subject is of belief and to see that the beliefs are weighed properly to be appreciated by all, including Non-Hindus and Non-Hindu critics of Hinduism, nececiate to be worded carefully. I am seeing, there are not many editors to this article. Asking for citations of my statements of widely known Hindu philosophy or beliefs send wrong signals that someone desire the article his way. These leads to further arguments and further pointing of finger. My experience with good Wikipedians is that one place a tameplate of (fact) but do not remove the content. I think, it's a right way of doing. Further, at least in the discussion grammatical errors or spelling errors arising out of off shot messages should not be made an issue. If, the meaning is not clear, there is no bar to seek further clarification. It is aparent that Apandey is supporting you against me in incivil language and coming out with citation, grammar etc. issue which irritate and take our lot of time. I have felt that your comments too were incivil. If you want to give justice to the cause you have taken on hand, you have to request Apandey not to be incivil in supporting you at the same time you should also observe the same. Sarcasm is considered to be incivil. This leads me to suspect sock puppeteering and I can ask for it's investigation. I have already alerted Wikipedians of the problems of edit war and incivil behaviour. Let us positively work for constructing an article that give fair impression of Hinduism to world at large. I am not going to go out of editing this article under any circustances, so is for you. I feel, we have to supplement each other's effort. It's a selfless task of promoting Hinduism and clearing concept of Hinduism to the present generation of Hindus who are deprived of it's natural study due to changed system. Seeking your co-operation.Swadhyayee 04:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your action of removing my edits in the name of redundancy. Pl. let it remain as it is till Wikipedian mediation committee or third party other than people involved in edit wars here, comment on this. Pl. don't bother for my grammar and burden yourself with sole responsibility of maintaining the quality. I will request good Wikipedians or admins to correct it, if, at all grammatical errors lower the quality of article. Pl. bother for team spirit over quality of article. One would always feel that one's language is better. Pl. have patience till some Wikipedian better than us do the changes. Swadhyayee 04:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Let's see what others say. HeBhagawan 04:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Avatāras (incarnations of God)

I think some of the translation of of V. 8 of Chapter IV of Geeta is missing. "Paritranay Sadhunam, Vinashaya Ch Dushkrutam" The God takes human form to help sages (the people who work to protect religion in difficult times) and destroys evil persons.

This is very important as it projects the cause of incarnation of God. Another thing that "Age" is translated for "Yug" [ Yuge Yuge ]. If I mistake not, the term "Yug" means 1000 years. I wish somebody confirm the meaning of "Yug".

This message, increases the faith of the people who work for protecting the religion or righteousness and it implies that The God does not take human form, untill and unless, humans work to restore righteousness.

I feel that the translation here of V. 7 & 8 of Ch. IV of Geeta is devoid of proper meaning. Swadhyayee 08:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the translation of V. 7 & 8 of Chap. IV of Geeta in verse form has not been modified by anyone having English commentary Geeta, I will change the present translation in verse form to prose form.

As you said Avatar is incarnation of GOD. Re-incarnation is referred to mean re-birth only. This is to discuss your previous point when you asked about re-incarnation as being GOD taking janm as a human. I hope the difference between incarnation (avatar) and re-incarnation (re-birth) should be clear. Now that re-birth can be in the form of a human or animal or anything as you said earlier. Regarding the other point, when Yuge-Yuge is said, it can be translated as again and again, time and again etc. Example: Samabhavami yuge yuge, I will keep on coming time and again. Translating Yug for 1000 years or so would be inappropriate IMO. --Apandey 08:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think re-incarnation is referred to 2nd and consecutive Avtars. I found either in the article or discussion, the term "re-incarnation" being referred to for re-birth of humans. If, I mistake not re-incarnation means subsequent Avtars. Swadhyayee 08:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say that what you think is not correct. Re-incarnation is considered as rebirth of humans (as humans or any other thing). It has nothing to do with Avatars. Re-incarnation is Punarjanm. Any other editors may please also contribute. Thanks. --Apandey 11:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Reincarnation v. Incarnation: Morphologically speaking, "Reincarnation" could mean what Swadhyayee says. However, As per custom in the English language (which, of course, is the language of this article):

1. Reincarnation refers to ordinary humans.
2. Incarnation or Incarnation of God refers to an avatār.

We should follow the custom of ordinary English here. HeBhagawan 14:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Since reincarnation has different connotation in the subject matter and there is no harm of using rebirth, I think we should change to rebirth.Swadhyayee 17:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think rebirth and reincarnation are the same. I don't see any particular reason to change. As far as I am concerned, we can use both. HeBhagawan 17:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Festivals and History

Can somebody help to expand the History section and to create a "Hindu Festivals" section? That would be more valuable than tinkering with the sections that already exist. I will do it myself if nobody else does, but I am rather busy so I cannot spend as much time on it as I would like. HeBhagawan 14:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan

It's your claim that the article is lengthy also you have no time than why propose a subject for which a new article is desirable as Hindus must be having over 100 festivals.Swadhyayee 19:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To both of guys, Swadhyayee and HeBhagawan, thanks for devoting soo much time on this article. But, this article right now is ridiculously long. Please go through Wikipedia:Article size. Also, please don't expand any section. Instead, focus on improving their quality. Try make them brief and create new articles if needed. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 05:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Deepak, I agree that we need to keep the size under control. HeBhagawan 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee I have moved some parts of the reincarnation section to the reincarnation article. I waited for others to comment, but so far nobody has offered any opinions. My opinion is that your edits on that section may tend to muddle a newcomer's understanding of reincarnation rather than clarify it. I don't disagree with the content of what you said; I just think that the way you said it has the following problems:

1. It is partly redundant with what is already in the article and
2. It provides a higher level of detail than is ideal (for the Hinduism page--this level of detail belongs on the reincarnation page)
3. It introduces multiple grammatical errors (it even rewords some sentences I myself previously wrote, rendering them ungrammatical!)

I'm not out to get you. As you may recal, I have incorporated your edits in other parts of the article (apaurusheya, oral Vedic transmission, classification of the Vedas), and I even found citations for your edits. I have also corrected the grammar in your other edits. So please don't take it personally that I am moving this small part to the reincarnation page. If most other editors disagree with me, of course I will gladly replace it. HeBhagawan 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan,

Will you be bit honest? In the name of removing some material to new article "re-incarnation" you removed my contribution. What right do you think you have to be judge of what is redundant? Will you accept being a western your perceptions may be in-sufficient? 1st thing, either remove theory of reincarnation totally or don't try to remove my contributions. Who have appointed you to judge the article, redundancy, size of article etc. You are definitely trying to promote your things. Swadhyayee 02:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Testing

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

Do not remove statements that you believe to be both true and common knowledge, simply because they aren't sourced.

I am copy pasting here, Wikipedia policy for statements true and of common knowledge, simply because they aren't sourced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Requesting_sources

Requesting sources:

Do not remove statements that you believe to be both true and common knowledge, simply because they aren't sourced. Don't, for instance, remove a reference to "earth's elliptical orbit" simply because the writer has not supported the assertion that planetary orbits are elliptical.Swadhyayee 02:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee: I don't think you have to fear removal of your statements simply for being unsourced. I haven't deleted anybody's edits simply for this reason, nor have I seen others do so. I do not delete the edits of other people lightly, and I would only do so when a statement is of doubtful veracity AND unsourced, or because it otherwise reduces the quality of the article. If what you say is indeed non-controversial, and it enhances the article, then I myself will defend you from anyone trying to remove your edits. Citations are always better than no citations, but of course they are not absolutely required for non-controversial statements. So you need not worry about this.HeBhagawan 03:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have requested Ragib to look in to.

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

Admin intervention needed

This user is not acting in good faith. Anything that is told to him, he either does not put any effort to read and understand OR he simply ignores it. If all the other editors have a consensus to something, then also he is not ready to understand the problem. I have given exact references of his poor edits earlier but he seems to blame me of sock puppetry again and again. He is threatening to bring admins, mediators, advocates, even Jimmy Wales but has not been able to logically prove any of his points except for "I think so", "In my opinion" etc. and then accusing others to take sides and so on. Repeating what I have said before is just a waste of my time and energy. I just wish some admin (any admin of his choice) comes here, sees the edit history of the main article and the talk page and expresses his/ her views. I am extremely sorry to see the direction this discussion is taking now. That said, I will continue reverting any efforts of vandalism (by any user), incorrect or monopolistic views and unwanted additions whenever I have time.

HeBhagwan, as I have said before and others are pointing also, please keep a check on the article's size. I believe details of individual yogas, incarnation etc must be moved to their respective articles. What do you think. --Apandey 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

APandey: I have already moved a few things to help trim the article. I am a somewhat hesitant to move the yogas, although maybe we can word them more concisely. To me it seems that the brief explanation of the four yogas which we now have would be helpful to a newcomer who is trying to understand Hinduism's core principle of "many paths to the same goal." But you are right that length is important. The main article should be something that somebody can read in a short time. One thing to remember is that a sizable chunk of the length of the article is in the footnotes and other links at the bottom, and most people do not read the footnotes. I think that I would prefer to move the entire "classification of scriptures" section to its own page (or to already-existing pages) rather than move the paragraphs on the yogas. Let me think about it a little bit. In the meantime, I solicit the opinions of others. HeBhagawan 13:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Namaskār APandey: In accordance with your suggestion to shorten the article, I went ahead and moved some of the more detailed information on classification of scriptures to the Hindu Scriptures article. If you or other editors disagree with this decision, you are welcome to revert. HeBhagawan 18:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of "one" is more appropriate than "we".

Use of "one" third person sigular form is more appropriate than using "we", hence I have reverted the edits. Swadhyayee 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Swadhyayee 00:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)===Introducing too many Grammatical Errors=== Hi Swadhyayee I don't mind your decision to change "we" to "one." That is fine if you prefer it. There is only one problem, and it seems to be ongoing: in the process of attempting to improve the language of the article, you continue to inadvertantly make it worse by introducing multiple grammatical errors where there were none before. Not only do you have many mistakes in your own language, but you even change the grammatical language of other editors to render it ungrammatical. I am sure you do not do this intentionally, and know you have good motives. However, I must revert the article in order to correct these errors. I highly suggest that you when making your edits, you do one of the following:

1. take the assistance of a native-level English speaker,
2. make the edits on a page in your native tongue (Hindi? Gujarati?), or
3. describe on the discussion page the substance of what you wish to add/change in the article, and let others actually make the changes (as I have done for you several times in the past).

Again, it isn't my intention to insult your language or anything (you are doubtless more proficient in some other languages than I am). However, it takes a lot of time for other editors (such as myself) to constantly have to fix grammatical errors and muddled language when you introduce them, however unintentional it may be. I apologize for having to revert your edits, and I will continue to try to work with you and the other editors to make the article as good as it can be. Thanks. If you want the language to be "one" rather than "we," I will try to help you change it, although I'm not sure it is the most effective use of my time. (Note that I can't do it today however, due to other obligations). I preserved your addition of "intellect" to the reincarnation section.HeBhagawan 17:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mirror, Mirror, who is fairest of all? Me (HeBhagawan) only. If you can keep your mind open to accept that you need additional study of grammar it would be good. I think, you should look in to "Wren & Martin" which it seems you have not. Don't you think, you should concentrate on material part than grammar? I had explained that it is not good actions that develop good tendencies, it is motives that decide an action being good or bad. I was not happy with the way you put the original text, yet, I just changed it to "good motivated actions" from "good actions" and you have reverted it to your original good actions (from good motivated actions). Does this not indicate that you are not open to correction? Does this not indicate that you are trying to monopolise the article or have the article your way? You have removed the basis of Law of Karma, God has gifted humans, the ability to rational thinking and assess and so one is responsible for one's actions viz. good motivated actions generate good tendencies. Here also the better thing is to put the same as "it sublimates the mental and intellectual attitudes" like things than "good actions will give good tendencies". What does it indicate? Does it again not indicate earlier two observations? Instead of replacing your sentences, I just modified your sentences which I find are not enough impressive or good standard. This I did to avoid conflicts.

Either Wikipedians are not responding to Wikialerts or it takes longer time than your patience. Pl. try to assume that you could be wrong. Frankly, I have doubt that you are merely trying to reproduce some book text and so you are not able to distinguish between a correct connotation from the connotation of the book you are referring. I only wish, someone better can explain and you understand your shortcomings of knowledge of subject matter and grammar. I said, I do not want to discuss other than article matter. Your strong ideas about your grammar to be super, your views of redundancy being correct and your other beliefs to be true and needing no corrections drive you to discuss the matters other than the article. Unless, you realise that you miss something in your thinking, things want improve. Pl. don't try to load me with more of your views.Swadhyayee 00:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee: Please be civil. Personal attacks reflect poorly on the one who makes them. Thank you. HeBhagawan 01:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

First of all, editors if possible, please add your comments in sequence here. Create a separate heading if required but add in the end. It helps to view the difference much faster as compared to, if the new comments are put in old section. I know it is not always possible to do but please try.

About the proposed reorganization etc., I would like to say the following:

• Current changes of Classification of Scriptures section looks fine to me.
• Reincarnation details can also be moved to its main article. (It is moving back and forth right now).
• Section on Multiple Ways to Reach the Goal (yoga) also can be shortened IMHO. Too much details of individual yogas are given when we already have separate articles for that. But even if we want to keep it, we can reduce the length of Jnana Yoga and Raja Yog probably. Swami Vivekananda's reference (picture) is also not very suitable here (although I like him a lot). We should be OK to remove that.

As far as use of one over we, he, she is concerned, I am fine with either as long as the sentences are in correct english. Thanks. --Apandey 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

APandey: Thanks for your suggestions. I will have another look at the Yogas section and think about what can be moved to the main articles to make this one more concise. The jnana yoga section is a little longer than the other yogas becasue it is probably the hardest concept to grasp, so I incorporated the analogy about the ocean and waves, even though it increased the length a little.

I would be disappointed to get rid of the Swami Vivekananda photo. If you look at the Sikhism page, for example, it is full of pictures. Our Hinduism page has relatively few pictures IMHO, and I think the Swami Vivekananda photo is the only photo of an actual Hindu person. In that single picture you get 5 benefits: (1) A picture of a Hindu, (2) a picture of a sadhu, (3) a picture of a guru, (4) a picture of a person practicing meditation, and (5) a picture of a person who practiced (and taught) all 4 yogas. As always, however, I am willing to be convinced to remove it if you really think we should.

To all editors: Thank you to the editors who appear from time to time to fix typos, offer input on the discussion page, revert vandalism, and make edit improvements. All high-quality edits are very much appreciated. I have done a fair amount of the work in revising the article, but it is a big job, so please contribute wherever you can. Also, if you all are generally happy with the main Hinduism page, it might be time for us to move on to the other pages in the Hinduism project, some of which are in the same poor condition the Hinduism page was in several weeks ago. Jay Mã Saraswati! HeBhagawan 22:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

To all of you who are very actively participating: I am very grateful for you efforts here. I would just like to once again offer my perspective that sees that the idea of Bhakti-Japa-Raja-Jnana Yoga etc. as not something universal in Hinduism, among other things mentioned in the main Hinduism article. This is one of my strongest reasons to ask for a reorganization that begins first and importantly foremost with the idea of a harmonious plurality, and the proceed to offer the many schools in their own, seperate articles. As far as the non-referring content of Hinduism, I do indeed believe that it should provide a very brief overview of each of its core concepts, with all of them linking off to their own articles, but I very much want the core concepts to be revised. Saiva suj 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism by Country

Everybody: I made a few edits (minor ones) to slightly reduce the size of the article. I have a proposal: Shall we delete the text of the Geographic Distribution section, retaining only the link to the "Hinduism by Country" article? Most of the information in that paragraph is in the Hinduism article's introductory section already, so it is somewhat redundant. Tell me what you think.

Update: Swadhyayee reverted the changes I made to reduce the size of the article. I don't feel strongly one way or the other about the size of the article, but I just wanted to note here that the article in its present condition does not contain most of the changes I made for brevity. Yesterday I asked a sadhu (Hindu monk) to look over the article. He did so and said that perhaps it should be more concise. I asked hm for suggestions regarding which parts should be deleted or moved, and I am awaiting his reply. Of course we are not required to take his suggestions, but we can take them into consideration. I will post his reply here after I hear from him again. HeBhagawan 15:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing my one or two sentences, the basis behind the rational of law of Karma which as appears, you have no knowledge of the same or it does not suit you, is not going to affect the size of article which is already 75 printable pages.. I desire it remain there (and I may slightly improve it) to give foundation to the Hinduism doctrines that the next birth depends upon one's Karma of previous births. Otherwise the theory may appear to be superstitious. Admittedly you are westerner, you should allow incorporation done by Indian Hindus like me. You have no right to remove it under pretext of brevity, size of article or redundancy. If, you desire, read "Law of Karma" by Hirabhai Thakkar if you get it. I do agree that the article is long so is vast Hinduism itself. If, you really want to make the article brief, remove other things, why do you get only my edits to remove? I am not going to allow your transfering my edits from Karma & Re-incarnation and continue with the topic there in the article. If, you transfered, why did you not provide link to the new article?Swadhyayee 16:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to swadhyayee - I'm guessing HeBhagwan is an NRI/PIO. Very few of the editors are actual Indian Hindus. Please dont question someone's knowledge based on their geographic location. "Admittedly you are Westerner" is somewhat insulting. Most of us are "Westerners", Swadhyayee. I think HeBhagwan is doing quite a good job, even if he is a "westerner" (like me, DaGizza, Ragib, D-Boy,Subhash_bose, Hkelkar, etc.)Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean as you say Bakasuprman. Since he has been removing my edits giving basis of theory of Karma so as Law of Karma may not be seen as superstitious but seem logical. I don't know why he is not able to accept other additional views. Does Wikipedia allow no further edits if someone has done good job?Swadhyayee 06:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I see..

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

Actually I did not revert all your edits; only some. My only request is that you make contributions that improve the article, and give due consideration to the collaborative efforts of other editors to make this a a clear, reliable, and well-organized article. Although I know it has not been your intention, most of your edits have moved the article in the opposite direction. I moved your edits on reincarnation to the reincarnation page, in accordance with the ongoing discussion on the level of detail that the article should include. Also, in case you didn't notice, you reverted all my edits--even though I sought the advice of other editors when making them. The issue is not really one of fairness, it is one of quality and collaborative effort. HeBhagawan 13:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is your opinion that the article is being moved in opposite direction by my edits. Hinduism has plenty of facets and each facet whoever contributes should be allowed to make a true article. Pl. for The God's sake you realise that the article should not be as acceptable to you or the size or quality has to be judged by your eyes. While you remove other views under any pretext, it leaves the impression that one organisation or some publisher is trying to promote particular view and the article is attempted to be used for advertising particular school of thoughts.Swadhyayee 17:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is my opinion. I never claimed otherwise. And what you say is your opinion. Of course. Hence the only way to resolve a difference in opinion is by considering the opinions of the editing community as a whole, and to provide specific verifiable authority for your claims. It is not sufficient proof to merely claim that you are right. Nor is it sufficient for you to claim that you are right on account of your age or nationality, as you did above. If you have a problem with the content of another editor's edits, or if you think they are POV, all you have to do is follow a simple process: (1) discuss--in a civil, rational manner--what you believe is a better NPOV alternative, (2) provide specific citations to verifiable authorities that support your proposals, and (3) abide by whatever concensus the community reaches in the end, even if it is not what you like. Please make an effort to follow this process. It is not right for you to dominate the article by unilaterally making the types of changes you are making, without the advice or consent of other editors.HeBhagawan 17:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-09 Hinduism

Named participants:

• Swadhyayee
• Apandey
• HeBhagawan
• Chris

If you would, please give your input on the case page. There is no mediator selected as of yet, though please do not let this keep you from attempting to negotiate a truce and terms between yourselves. If any of the involved parties feel page protection is needed, please let me know and it will be provided temporarily, though this is not the preferred method of resolving disputes.

If any neutral party would like to work as mediator, feel free to sign up on the mediation page. Be aware that you're required to put "truth" aside for this and concentrate on resolving the dispute and adhering to the Wikipedia standards of Verifiability and Reliable Sources.

Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kylu. I wish that you would have commented on certain issues to prevent bitterness rising since there were lot of allegations against me that my English is poor and full of grammatical errors, it changes the sense in opposite direction, I am not listening to others and so on. Further, the incivility issue raised by me. I wish that as you already have responded to my request, you as well give your frank opinions in moderate language.Swadhyayee 17:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Undo - Redo

Swadhyayee is again engaged in undoing whatever HeBhagawan is adding or modifying. While HeBhagawan is trying to provide his justification to his work and discussing on talk pages also, Swadhyayee is only engaged in removing HeBhagawan's edits. His focus certainly has changed in a perverted manner where his sole objective is to keep the article in the way he wishes rather than actually making the article better by adding quality content or by doing other favours to the article in general. He has no respect for the concensus of other editors, the hard work done by one editor and the various requests that has been made to him in the past. I want to ask him a question, since he has already referred this article for mediation [4] , so why does not he wait for the result of that. Referring an article for mediation and keep on continuing in an edit-war does not seem good to me. Thanks. --Apandey 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It is ridiculous that one single user is bringing the progress of the article to a halt. It was improving daily until he arrived on the scene. It is very frustrating. HeBhagawan 03:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

To all editors I did a revert that unfortunately removed a few good edits in the process of removing a lot of bad ones. It would simply have taken too much time to correct all the bad ones that have been made in the past 15 hours or so manually. I will try to go through and put the good edits back in. I do appreciate all of your work. If you are an editor who made good contributions, please don't think that I'm trying to suppress your views--you are welcome to put your edits back into the article. HeBhagawan 03:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Another note to all editors. After moving a few parts of the article to other appropriate pages within the Hinduism project, I would like your comments on whether you think the article should be shorter than it currently is, whether is should be longer, or whether it is currently at about the right length. Apandey believes that article should be shorter (although he might think it is ok now since I made some deletions). Swadhyayee thinks the article should be vast since the Hindu religion is vast. In my humble opinion, both views have merit. So I need your help to decide. Thank you! HeBhagawan 05:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't interprete what I have said. Let the readers have their own understanding of the meaning of what I have said. I don't say that the article has to be vast. The one who made this article should have taken care much earlier. It runs in to more than 75 printable pages. I just tried to say that since the Hinduism subject is vast, the article has become long.Swadhyayee 06:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee: Actually, it is 26 printable pages. I apologize if I misinterpreted what you said. What is your position on the issue? Should the article be longer, shorter, or about the same? Any constructive criticism is appreciated. The edits you made today contained some constructive ideas, but once again they caused a lot of damage to the article. You inserted a lot of extremely low-quality material and deleted high-quality material at the same time. Please do not do this.

26 Pages or 75 pages.

Around 3 days ago, I thought of finding out how many pages the article runs into to take out a print out if possible. The Print Preview showed me 75 pages.

2) Regarding low quality, when I read a particular topic and it strikes to me to add something, I add without bothering for high quality. HeBhagawan, You are a too big man so that you can edit high quality. I am a too small man to write anything high quality. I do not mind someone changing it without affecting it's sense but removal may not be well received by me. Who says that the article at any moment has to be of high quality at your fathom? Those who read, is certainly going to pay attention to his intellequal quest. He is going to rate the article of high quality if he feels so, irrespective of some low quality additions by me. Pl. stop bothering about it and carry on your task. Things will improve of it's own. There is no need for your to be so impatient.59.182.18.38 19:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

To other editors: Please help to monitor the changes made by Swadhyayee until the mediators decide whether to block him from this page. In my view, almost all his edits have failed to meet Wikipedia quality standards. With some exceptions, the substantive content of his edits is appropriate, but the way he implements his edits (without citations, disorganized, ungrammatical and muddled language) is a problem. Use your own judgement. Thank you! HeBhagawan 13:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

To other editors: Please help to monitor all over-enthusiastic editors, HeBhagawan as well as Swadhyayee. I do not doubt their intentions but they might end up in destroying the article rather than improving it with their personal agendas.

One thing I don't understand is the nomenclature, Raja Yoga, though there is nothing kingly about it. I may point out that Rajayoga and Sahajayoga are the terms most used by charlatans to fool people. I suppose the Reverend Patanjali was wrong in making it so difficult to achieve. Aupmanyav 15:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The original etymology of the term raja yoga comes from the Sanskrit dhatu "rāj," which has two meanings:

1. to rule
2. to shine, be illustrious or resplendent; to illuminate, make radient (Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary ISBN 0-19-864308-x).

The origin of the term raja yoga is probably more related the second of these definitions, since raja yoga is believed to be a path to spiritual illumination. According to A Popular Dictionary of Hinduism (Curzon Press 1994) (ISBN 0-7007-0279-2), the term raja yoga has been used since medieval times, and was originally coined to stress the importance of the meditational aspects of yoga (dhyana) over the physical aspects (asana, associated with hatha yoga). According to the Puranic Encyclopedia (Motilal Banarsidass 1998), however, hatha yoga is considered to be a sub-category of raja yoga. I will try to find out specifically in which medieval scriptures the term was first used. My wife says I have too many books, but they come in handy sometimes!

By the way, I absolutely agree that other editors should monitor my edits. If I make edits that are of poor quality or that are POV, I would encourage others to help me improve them. HeBhagawan 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is 'dhyana', how is it different from jnana-yoga? If you think, concentrate, deliberate on some point, that is the realm of 'jnana'. Aupmanyav 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aupmanyav, please help me understand what you mean when you say, I may point out that Rajayoga and Sahajayoga are the terms most used by charlatans to fool people. I suppose the Reverend Patanjali was wrong in making it so difficult to achieve. Rajayoga is the original term which is synonymous with Ashtang yoga. Sahajayoga, Hathyoga etc may be a part of it. If I am not wrong, Sahajayoga is a pretty new term which has come up in our age, as compared to Rajayoga which is centuries old. I do not know much about Sahajayoga except for the fact that some Mata Nirmala Devi is very active in spreading it. Hathayoga deals with only body related stuff, e.g. how to keep your body fit and absolutely free of diseases. Hundreds of excercises come under this. Whereas Rajayoga goes much beyong body. With Pratyahara, Dharna, Dhyaan and finally Samadhi (the different stages, like Savikalp and Nirvikalp etc) the user finally becomes one with the GOD. I mean it is the same goal which is achieved through the other ways (Karm, Bhakti and Jnana). Also, when you declare that Patanjali was wrong in making it difficult to achieve, I again do not understand you. Who says it is difficult or easy to achieve. All the four are difficult if you see that way. Karm yoga whose essence is just that "Do your work, without attachment to the results", looks pretty simple, but it is extremely difficult to practice. Jnana yoga is even more difficult. So how do you think that Rajyog is difficult.

If you want to understand how Rajayoga is different from Jnanayoga, even though it has dhyaan etc, one of the nice resources is the complete works of Swami Vivekananda. It is available online for free. Jnanayoga is also described in detail in books like Ashtavakra Sanhita whereas the authoritative source for Rajayoga is Patanajali's YogSutra. Thanks. --Apandey 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good question. It makes me happy to see people thinking! Here is my limited understanding:

Jnana yoga and raja yoga are undoubtedly related. It is probably fair to say that bhakti yoga and karma yoga are closely related ot each other on one side, and, on the other side, jnana yoga and raja yoga are closely related to each other. As the article notes, most sadhakas incorporate elements from multiple yogas into their personal practices--I know of very few people who stick exclusively to one kind of yoga (although there are a few who do so).

Despite their similarities, however, each yoga has developed isome distinct traditions. For example, jnana yoga tends to be associated with advaita vedanta. A jnani usually seeks to realize that the atman is identical with God, and that the world is unreal. The jnani seeks to "become sugar." Jnana yoga tends to focus on Brahman, the impersonal God. For its authority, Jnana yoga looks especially to the Upanishads and the teachings of Adi Shankara. The Upanishads depict people realizing God without necessarily meditating (they often attain realization through conversations and reasoning, as in the Katha Upanishad). So it is possible to practice jnana yoga without meditating at all, even though most people find that it is more effective when combined with meditation. (Similarly bhaktas usually find that is is easier to gain devotion to God if they practice karma yoga at the same time).

Raja yoga is more flexible in a way: it can be used to attain the realization of Brahman OR the vision of some form of Ishwara (the personal God). So you can use raja yoga to either "become sugar" OR to "taste sugar." Also, raja yoga focuses on meditation and gaining one-pointedness of mind, not mere reasoning and argumentation of the kind found in the stories of the Upanishads. Followers of Raja yoga look especially to the Yoga Sutras, the Yoga Philosophy (one of the orthodox Darshanas), and the 5th and 5th chapers of the Gita for guidance.

There are other differences too, but I don't want to get too detailed. The 4 categories of yogas aren't hard and fast, and they are not exclusive. They just convenient --and traditional--labels that have been put on the most common approaches to spiritual life found in Hinduism. I think that the practices existed prior to the labels. The 4 yogas are simply a traditional way to categorize what are actually millions of individual paths as practiced by millions of different people. HeBhagawan 18:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Meditation means deep thinking. Is it anything else? Gaining one-pointedness of mind, and what after that? Thinking. Or one does something else? What else is there apart from mere (sic!) reasoning and argumentation (with others or within oneself)? Aupmanyav 10:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, these are just traditional labels. You are absolutely right to think that Jnana Yoga and Raja Yoga have more similarities than differences.HeBhagawan 14:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am curious as to who coined the word Raja Yoga. Was it Patanjali? Did he say Yoga or Raja Yoga? What was the authority of the person who termed it Raja Yoga? You say Raja means 'briliiant'. Are not Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, and Karma Yoga, brilliant? As I said if it pertains to mind, then it is Jnana Yoga; if it pertains to body, then it is Hatha Yoga. Would anybody tell me what is Raja Yoga? Aupmanyav 13:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The word "Raja" means King. While explaining Raj Vidhya, Pandurang Shashtri told that Raj Vidhya makes one king or in alternate Raj Vidhya is the king of Vidhyas. Make king should not be literally interpreted. It means understanding Raj Vidhya makes one independant like king.Swadhyayee 22:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Was it Panduranga Shastri who coins the word RajaYoga? My confusion about Jnana/Hatha yoga is still not removed. What is RajaYoga? Does the word have any antiquity? Or is it a word coined to attract westerners? Aupmanyav 15:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav,

I am talking about Raj Vidhya which is a subject in Bhagawad Geeta not Raj Yoga. I don't think, Pandurang Shashtri has coined Raj Yoga. You may find Bakasuprmn having cited some reference of Raj Yoga.Swadhyayee 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Various comments

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

Swadhyayee made the following statement: "When I read a particular topic and it strikes to me to add something, I add without bothering for high quality."

Swadhyayee: I understand your approach. Although it would be fine if you were the only one editing the article, it creates extra work for others to have to follow behind you cleaning up the low-quality edits. Please consider this alternative: Make your rough-draft edits on a separate document, or on the discussion page. Then, AFTER you have brought the draft up to wikipedia quality standards, incorporate them into the article. This approach should work better for everybody.

Is it Wikipedia quality standards or HeBhagawan quality standards? A man editing on Hinduism should do it with right means. The means of any good actions has to be good/right. It reminds me of a story. An actor was a drunkard and chain smoker. Once he acted as "Ram" in a drama, he left his drinking and smoking habits, meaning there by acting as "Ram" sublimated his conscience. The one who edit on religious topic like Hinduism ought to sublimate his conscience. Your means are not right. Any good actions not backed by right means will fail to give positive results. Through these edits, we are learning Hinduism. Make your self to be a student than scholar. Your seeing that my edits are of low quality indicate that you have fault finding looks over neutral observations. Those who fail to accept other rationals exhibit immaturity. I hardly try to find your faults, what I do is trying to find the meaning of text I read. Your repeatedly changing "one" for "we" indicate you to be novice than a "Sadhak". I think it would be beneficiary to you, if you will see the present edits an opportunity to sublimate your conscience. One has to be Hindu while editing Hinduism. Hindus are quiet tolerant in their behaviour. Nothing done to improve others give results until and unless it is done to improve one's ownself. With due apology, you lack due maturity and modesty in your work in constructing this article. What ever noble you try to do, do with faith in your Ista-dev. "Karmanyeva Dhikarsya, Ma Fale Su Kadachin" should be at the back of mind. Your attempts to make this article your way indicate your possessiveness. We don't own Wikipedia, We don't own the contents of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a platform offering us an opportunity to learn. Your focus is wrongfully on pumping air in your ego/proud over learning. Have you ever observed beggers claiming that the land they stand is theirs? It's their right to stand there? If one exhibit possessiveness, his mentality can be equated with that of.... Take this comment in good spirit and you will be able to benefit in your personal life. No amount of reading or listening will change one until one practises what one read or listen. I can see connection between HeBhagawan and A.Pandey. Those who do wrong leave trail.59.182.24.65 02:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Let us all continue our efforts not to take criticism personally. Everyone, including me, can benefit from considering what others suggest. Thanks for listening! HeBhagawan 20:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee: Please have a look at the first footnote in the Karma & Reincarnation section. I have tried to address your concerns there. If you are not satisfied with it being in a footnote, I will be happy to put it in the main text--but only if you can figure out a way to do it elegantly. I could not figure out a way to do it without reducing the clarity of the main text and interrupting its flow. But I did my best. Let me know what you think. HeBhagawan 20:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is what wikipedia says about article length:

In the past, because of some now rarely used browsers, technical considerations prompted a strong recommendation that articles be limited to a maximum of precisely 32 KB in size, since editing any article longer than that would cause severe problems. With the advent of the section editing feature and the availability of upgrades for the affected browsers, this once hard and fast rule has been softened and many articles exist which are over 32 KB of total text.

Though article size is no longer a binding rule, there remain stylistic reasons why the main body of an article should not be unreasonably long, including readability issues. It is instead treated as a guideline, and considered case by case depending on the nature of the article itself.

For stylistic purposes, only the main body of prose[1] (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size, since the point is to limit the size of the main body of prose.

Even so, an edit warning is displayed when a page exceeds 32 KB of text in total, to act as a reminder that the page may be starting to get too long (see MediaWiki:Longpagewarning). HeBhagawan 21:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My favorite book is the Bhagavad Gita but I do not see why it is neccary to be part of this article.--Seadog.M.S 12:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee / User IP 59.182.24.65 It is preferable to make edits under a single user ID. Sometimes there may be a reason to do otherwise (when necessary to protect security at a public computer), but in general you should use the same ID for everything. Of course, I understand if you simply forgot to sign in. Thanks HeBhagawan 13:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

One user had previously deleted the etymology section I thought it was a pretty good idea considering the size of the article. What do you think? HeBhagawan 13:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree
THis article is way to big to try to explain the whole aspects of the Hindu religion (It is impossible to try to do so the religion is way to deep)--Seadog.M.S 13:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right. But keep in mind also that a big chunk of the article is the footnotes and references. The article may still be too long, but perhaps not quite as long as it seems by simply looking at the amount of memory it takes up (since according to wikipedia standards footnotes and references do not count toward length). HeBhagawan 13:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

More Misc. Comments

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

Does anybody know how to put the "See Also" section (at the bottom of the article) into columns, like the footnotes section is? If you know how, could you please do it? Thanks! HeBhagawan 15:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I did it right..........go ahead and take alook.--Seadog.M.S 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Seadog: Great job! It looks so much better!HeBhagawan

Chosen people and Hinduism

I'm just a curious learner of Hinduism. While reading about it, I came across this Wiki on Hinduism and the concept of a "chosen people" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen_people#Hinduism). How true are the statements made in here? Thanks. Splashprince 08:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Splashprince, BK is a cult. Main-stream hindus will distance themselves from that. Aupmanyav 10:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the BK views on this point are pretty idiosyncratic, although I don't know the details of what the BKs believe. The concept of a "chosen people" is not something that appears in traditional or mainstream Hinduism. Of course, there are some people in every religion who think that they are superior to others, but I don't think that this belief is very prominent in Hinduism. The scriptures certainly don't emphasize any such concept. HeBhagawan 12:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Splashprince 01:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Their view makes sense, as most views do, only when the view is attempted from their vantage point. I dispute the use of the BK's perspective within the article of chosen people because it uses the concept of samsara. The sense of chosen people represented from the rest of those perspectives are restricted by finity.To understand their view and vantage point, you should think about the story of Matsya Avatar, the work of Shri Veda Vyaasa (his namesake, not the Mahabharat), Shri Krishna, and to many people also Buddha, Shri Swachandanath, Shri Durvasa, etc. Always, has this idea been included in Hindu philosophy, and, as always, has been represented in many different ways.The more specific thought used by Brahma Kumaris can be more easily understood in monistic vision.

Om Namahsivaya.

Saiva suj 20:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Saiva, You raise a good point: Most views make sense only when you try to understand them from the viewpoint of the people who hold them. HeBhagawan 11:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Splashprince, on the contrary, the Hindu scriptures see differences as faulty understanding, Krishna in Geeta said that those only who see no difference between a learned brahmin, a shudra, a woman, or a street dog, can be said to be seeing. Aupmanyav 12:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyaji, I think you meant to address me, and not Splashprince. One who sees a difference between a child and an adult will not agree with you, in this respect. Our philosophy is indeed of pure monism, and therefore I see things more like you do, however, I do not claim to be any more or less Hindu than the no doubt honorable Brahma Kumaris.

Om Namahsivaya.

Saiva suj 19:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Saiva Suj ji: Had I meant to address you, I would have done that directly. What is the difference between a child and an adult? As they say, 'Child is the father of the man'. It is only ignorance which makes us to perceive differences where they are not. Otherwise all this is 'Brahman', 'Sarva Khalvidam Brahma' (Whole creation is Brahman), 'Purnamadah Purnamidam..'. Well, everybody to his/her own views. Aupmanyav 07:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyaji, again, I want to make it clear that I agree with you. In the shaivism we have in Kashmir, our vision is highly monistic, however, I think my point would be elucidated if you were to read the comments I wrote below on the section on More on Denominations.

Om Namahsivaya. Saiva suj 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

History

Ok, one of the requirements for featured article is that you can't have any obvious gaps in your article. However we have one: the history section. It only includes the ancient vedic period right now. Of course, since Hinduism is thousands of years old, it is not easy to write the entire history without making the article way too long. I've tried to write a few paragraphs on the most essential points.

I'm going to post them so you all can have a look. Tell me what you think: should we keep it? If you think we should delete what I wrote, we can do so. HeBhagawan 04:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does the "hindu proverbs" link in the box at the top right part of the article lead to "mythology?" Does anybody know how to fix this?HeBhagawan 03:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism is only one religion?

Looks more like a bucket of religions to me. — Rickyrab | Talk 08:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ricky, this is true of Hinduism, and of every major religion. Are Roman Catholocism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Russian Orthodoxy, and Syriac Orthodoxy different religions, or are they all denominations of Christianity? It would be fair to describe them either way. But for the sake of clarity in the article, I agree with the editor who called it "a religion" rather than "a set of religions." HeBhagawan 11:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. Hinduism is an artificially constructed Western term to describe a group of four distinct denominations . Ask any Vaishnavite and he will say that Vishnu grants moksha. ask a Advaitan Hindu or Smarta, worship of either Vishnu or Shiva leads to moksha as they are different faces of the one Brahman.

Raj2004 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Rajji, I, in turn, disagree with you here. Vaishnava/Shaiva/Smartha/Shaktha is artificial. We are talking about tilaks. There are innumerable ways of categorizing a Hindu, but always, he will be Hindu. Aupmanyav makes a very good point below about following dharm. This is the key. Here are some ways of categorizing Hindus: Vaidika/Tantrika, Astika/Nastika, Grhastha/Sannyasi, Advaita/bedhabedha/dvaita/etc., and then of course, the ultimate categorization, and possibly the only true categorization: disciple of which guru?

Om Namahsivaya.

Saiva suj 19:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Be a little careful about claiming to speak for all Vaishnavas. There are many differnt views within the broad category of Vaishnavism. Also, regarding the so-called "adwaita" and "smarta" denominations, if you ask a Hindu what denomination he or she belongs to, a relatively small number will say that they belong to the adwaita or smarta denominations. If they identify with a particular sect at all, it is more likely to be some form of Vaishnavism, Shaktism, or Shaivism. Adwaita and smarta are less influential as individual sects; their main import is that to varying degrees adwaitic and smarta beliefs can be found WITHIN the other sects. You are right that Vaishnavism TENDS to be associated with Dwaita. But this is only a general tendency, as there are Vaishnavas with different views as well. For this reason, I think the Hinduism article should avoid making categorical statements about what any particular denomination believes whenever it can do so without sacrificing clarity. What do you think?

Shri Krishnah Sharanam Mama, HeBhagawan 02:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right that Shaivas are not as big on incarnation as Vaishnavas are, but the idea exists in Shaivism too. For example, some Shaivas consider Shankaracharya to be an avatar of Shiva. The thing to remember about Hinduism is that every sect contains some ideas from other sects. It seems to me that the various denominations have more similarities than differences. HeBhagawan 03:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Advaita is the most dominant form of Hindu philosophical school that has influence in Hinduism. As most of the learned were influenced by this school, most Hindus, whether they know it or not, adopt its beliefs. see citation in the smarta article. No, advaita is not found in the sects. Vaishanaivism, for example, follows either qualified monism (Ramanuja or Dvaita, for the most part; it does not hold that jiva is essentially the same as Brahman. I respectfully disagree. shaivism does not believe in avatars. Making shankarayachara an avatar is a belief of an isolated few, not views of shaivism

Raj2004 09:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

and your comment or someone' else views about Karma is incorrect. Karma is not merely a law of cause and effect in Hinduism but dependent on free will and God.

Raj2004 09:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I have always considered the denominations to be artificially constructed by the West. Whether Shivji, Narayan or Shakti Maa is the supreme God is quite minor when almost all the other beliefs and customs are practically the same. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rickyrab: Unlike the Abrahamic religions Hinduism gives full freedom of personal belief. What it considered inalienable for all hindus was a person's 'dharma' (duty/right action). That is why hindus can be polytheists, monotheists, monists or even atheists. Aupmanyav 12:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You have all made good points. Regarding avatars, at least a solid majority of Hindus believe that avatars exist. Of course the idea is most central in Vaishnavism, but I think that even most Shaivas, Shaktas, and others believe that Krishna and Rama were avatars, although they might not give them as much importance as Vaishnavas do. The truth is that Hinduism does not have a Pope legislating what every Hindu has to believe. For every belief--avatars, duality, literal vs. figurative interpretations of scriptures, monotheism vs. polytheism, even the existence of God--there will be some Hindus who agree and some who don't. I think we all agree on that. There are potential differnces of opinion on almost every point. However, for the sake of clarity in the article, we can't have a disclaimer for EVERY sentence. We have to present the views that are most mainstream, and provide links to the various alternative schools of thought.

Raj, I don't understand what you mean when you say that most Hindus, whether they know it or not, accept Advaitic teachings--but in the following sentence you say that Advaita is not found in the sects. You seem to be saying two opposite things. HeBhagawan 14:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He Bhagwan, sorry for the confusion. Popular Hinduism seems to follow Advaita concept of worshipping God with many forms but people who follow strict Vaishnavites do not believe in Advaita at all. Yes, but atheists, contrary to what Aupmanyav states, is a small minority in Hinduism. But Aupmanyav is correct that Hindus for the most part are broad minded and tolerant.

Raj2004 00:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This article should only deal with mainstream Hinduism, or at least what the majority of Hindus have in common. There is no point dividing Hinduism into categories if they have nothing in common at all. Like Saiva suj mentioned above there are many different ways to categorise Hindus. Another way to classify Hindus common in North India is by those who do not worship idols (namely the Arya Samaj) and those who do worship idols (called the "Sanatan Dharmis" which literally means followers of the eternal religion but in this context means idol worshippers). Stuff like "Hindu atheism" might be mentioned a bit in the History section since it is very minor in modern Hinduism. Even the Sankhya and Mimamsa darshans have both now incorparated theistic elements. Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Gizza, The incorporation of theism by later thinkers in Samkhya/Mimamsa/Vaisesika should not be allowed to dilute the force of the ideas of the original thinkers. New views should be recognized only as evolutes or professed with new names. Aupmanyav 06:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)