User talk:Devadaru/Archive 1

On break

On break till, probably, late June or July 2008. Devadaru (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm online from time to time, in a very small way. Devadaru (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Devadaru, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

TheRingess (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

I would like to draw your attention to Apostles of Ramakrishna. There are lots of red links. Maybe some one could put in properly referenced biographies. This article was done by me much earlier. Now it is desirable to have in-line references. Regards - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivekananda

I have modified the article now as per your suggestion . Please undersand that , Paulose merely speculates the meeting of Vivekananda and Chattampi swamikkal .-Bharatveer (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

he agained reverted to old stuff; I have given my reasons in talk page.-Bharatveer (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Your contributions about Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda have been extremely valuable. Keep up the good work! Mankar Camoran^talk 12:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SRK biblio

Please feel free to contribute to this page: User:Goethean/SRKbiblio — goethean ॐ 15:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, I felt you had left wikipedia! Welcome back! Would you provide a valid email id address for your account ( in your wikipedia settings ) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkadv (talk • contribs) 03:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the musings!

Hi Devadaru, your musings were very nice! thanks for sharing them. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relax Devadaru, no need to get upset with all these small discussions, go thru this: Talk:Ramakrishna#Problems_with_lede. Your comments were helpful. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakrishna

Thank you for your helpful edit on Ramakrishna. Let's see how long it takes for the non-Mission approved information to be suppressed. — goethean ॐ 20:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello devadaru, thanks a lot. What you pointed out on the Ramakrishna's talk page is very true, If few editors do not stop the personal attacks, incivility etc., and adding one sided POVS, then this will instigate other editors to do the same, for example: An editor can add things on Wendy Doniger, Kripal, Urban, AAR, etc., Even the psychoanalysis of Doniger, Kripal exists and they are very reductive and its easy to illustrate a point very clearly using WP:RSes. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

While everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, I would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Specifically, this edit summary should not be repeated. Hipocrite (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Devadaru, I just wanted to give you my thanks and my respect for your input at Ramakrishna — particularly for the positive way that you have done it in spite of all the crude insults flying all around. Best to you, Priyanath ^talk 06:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matha move

IAST I am in favor of having IAST on all article names except possibly those Sanskrit-derived terms which are common in English (e.g. Nirvana.) Currently, implementation of IAST is inconsistent.—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks / response

Hi Devadaru, thanks for your kind message on my talk page. I responded there with a couple of paragraphs of thoughts. I put them there, so as to keep the thread together. Have a wonderful weekend! --Health Researcher (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, plus heads-up

Hello Devadaru, thanks for your kind words on my talk-page about the Spiritual Heritage of India page, I'm glad you found it well-done and helpful. I also like the idea in principle of having a separate Vedanta Press page.

I also want to give you a constructive "heads-up", in case you weren't already aware, that topics for separate pages are subject to the notability requirement -- and in this case, I suppose it would be the notability requirement for organizations: WP:ORG. Thus, to make the page able to resist challenges to its notability, someone should find a 3rd-part source that discusses Vedanta Press, and this should be inserted as a citation. Indeed, I imagine that there must be an interesting history there (I wonder if one of Isherwood's books, published by a different publisher, might qualify? Maybe the fine print of the guideline will tell). Hopefully you could find something like that by a Google web search, or maybe a Google book search or some other kind of specialized search. I remember that I ended up doing something along those lines when I created a page for Jaico Publishing House. By looking at that page's history, you can see that someone added a tag within 13 minutes after its creation, indicating that 3rd-party cites were needed (it's possible that the tag could be removed at this point, though I haven't thought it through carefully...). Hopefully this issue can manifest on the VedPr page merely as a minor problem to be solved -- a minor puzzle -- rather than as something more distressing. Thanks again for all your good efforts. All the best -- Health Researcher (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Devadaru. You have new messages at Health Researcher's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Couple of things...

[1] This is not justified by any WP policy.

Pls add something to your user-page, even its a blank line, I see you in the watchlist for quite sometime for now and the red link does not look good .

Hope you take in right spirit. :)--TheMandarin (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Bhava - the attitude of a child towards God

In the context of bhāvas —different attitudes that a devotee can take up to express his love for God - the correct word is santa i.e. child from the sanskrit word santati or santaana.

For your reference -

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=santa&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=AU

"To develop the devotee's love for God, Vaishnavism humanizes God. God is to be regarded as the devotee's Parent, Master, Friend, Child, Husband, or Sweetheart, each succeeding relationship representing an intensification of love. These bhavas, or attitudes toward God, are known as santa, dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, and madhur."

- http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/gospel/introduction/vaishnava_disciplines.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by122.172.120.95 (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anonymous editor:

Please see Apte, one of the most reliable of Sanskrit dictionaries: [2]. Santati does not mean child.

yes, santāna [3] can mean progeny.

Please have a look at the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, page 115:

"But in order to realize God, one must assume one of these attitudes: śānta, dāsya, sakhya, vātsalya, or madhur.

"Śānta, the serene attitude. The rishis of olden times had this attitude toward God. They did not desire any worldly enjoyment. ..."

I fear you misread Nikhilanandaji's words in his introduction. Sri Ramakrishna clearly says, in Nikhilanandaji's translation, that it is śānta, and that it means the serene attitude.Devadaru (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Devadaru,

In Sanskrit, one word can have different meanings depending on the context. Both santati or santaana can imply the same thing. If you refer to the dictionary link you provided above, you will notice the word santati does, in fact, include the meaning "offspring,progeny" and so does the word santaana. In the Bhakti tradition, it is the santa bhava "assuming the attitude of a child and regarding God as your parent" that is implied and not the "serene attitude".

The paragraph I quote below from Swami Nikhilanandaji's translation occurs on page 23 of The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna and should clarify the matter.

"To develop the devotee's love for God, Vaishnavism humanizes God. God is to be regarded as the devotee's Parent, Master, Friend, Child, Husband, or Sweetheart, each succeeding relationship representing an intensification of love. These bhavas, or attitudes toward God, are known as santa, dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, and madhur."

My endeavor here is to convey a right understanding of one of the basic ideas of the bhakti tradition and not to establish a particular words meaning. Hope you understand. Regards --NondualSelf (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NondualSelf,

It is clear that you understand the first of the 5 bhavas to be "santa", the attitude of a child. I don't think the passage you provide as evidence corroborates your view, however. If you look at the actual book (not a web page), on page 23, you will find that Nikhilanandaji uses the word "śānta", not "santa".

Yes, I see that Apte does include the meaning of "progeny" for santati and santāna. But without reliable evidence that the first of the 5 bhāvas is indeed santa not śānta, I don't feel ready to accept your view.

Regards Devadaru (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Devadaru,

Swami Nikhilananda clearly states -

"Vaishnavism humanizes God. God is to be regarded as the devotee's Parent, Master, Friend, Child, Husband, or Sweetheart"

In other words, Vaishnavism tries to relate to God by establishing with him any one of the relationships that we, as human beings, regard as being capable of rousing the deepest and strongest emotions in us. And the five bhavas or "attitudes toward God" correspond to those five human relationships. How can there be ambiguity in this matter?

But I understand your reluctance and would be happy to see it resolved by an authority on the subject.

Regards, NondualSelf (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NondualSelf,

As I understand it, Vaishnavism never emphasized the relationship of child to parent; that was more the contribution of Śāktism. Vaishnavism emphasizes the relations of servant to master, friend to friend, mother to child, and lover to beloved. Sri Ramakrishna practiced many bhavas, of course, including that of servant to master, handmaid of the Divine Mother, and lover to beloved. I have heard it said that the child to mother relation falls within śānta bhāva; but I think the relation of child to mother was never developed in traditional Vaishnavism. Perhaps it can be said to fall outside the five bhāvas, since they are specific to Vaishnavism. That was Sri Ramakrishna's main bhāva, though, the one to which he always returned. Perhaps it can be said that this was one of his special contributions, to emphasize approaching God as Mother, looking on oneself as Her child. Maybe some more research is needed here which could enrich the article. Regards, Devadaru (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]