User talk:Aupmanyav

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Aupmanyav, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! (I am much surprised! No one even bothered to welcome you!!) --Andy123 11:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You have compensated for it.

Aupmanyav 12:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dietary Habits and Doctrines (Citations)

'Dietary Habits and Doctrines See also: Vegetarianism, Vegan, Cuisine of India, and Jainism

Vegetarianism is not as common amongst Hindus as is thought in the West. While 82% of the population of India is Hindu, only about 20% is vegetarian. Vegetarianism is recommended for its sattvic qualities. Most Hindus abstain from Beef while others refrain from meat on holy days. [citations needed]'

I would suggest that the remark 'citations needed' should be removed, because you would not find them in scriptures. This is hinduism as is practiced (like the British constitution). I am a non-vegetarian but we do not eat non-vegetarian food on Tuesdays, birth anniversaries, and holidays. Among the Kashmiri Brahmins (the community to which I belong), non-vegetarian food was esstential on some holidays (Shivaratri), we have now abandoned the practice. We relish non-vegetarian food, but as people grow old, they tend to discard the practice. Aupmanyav 04:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism WikiProject

I've seen that you've made useful contributions Hinduism related articles on Wikipedia. Here we have a project where Wikipedians discuss and improve Hinduism-related articles together. You may consider joining. Thanks Gizza^Chat ^© 06:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello and welcome. May I request you to have a look at the Hindu article and especially its talk page. Thanks!! Rohitbd 11:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to "Want to Help" on my userpage

I personally have the Aryan/Vedic beliefs and that the Aryans came from Central Asia and settled into India, so I might not be the right person to look into this matter. However, if you can source and cite your edits with appropriate discussions on the talk page (read WP:CITE and WP:NOR policies of Wikipedia) of the relevant articles, things might work out for you. The other thing that you might do is, refer to the Arbitration Committee. --Andy123 12:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism Page

Hi, I see you're new, welcome to Wikipedia! I think your background as a Kashmiri Brahmin will help make the Hindu perspective more rounded. I see also that you have very strong point of views, I would recommend considering npov, Wikipedia:Citing sources as you edit some articles. I have biases as well and try to keep my edits npov.

Meanwhile, I will attempt to answer some of your discussion: While a person is free to change denomination, and while not forced within a denomination, it is not the norm to worship dieties outside the denom - just as protestant Christians may be born in one denomination but can change freely (I may be speaking outside my knowledge here). (btw, I have met many north indians professing to Vaishnavism too). I think atleast the intro should reflect unifying aspect of the religion rather than dividing. The page also clarifies the unifying aspects of Dharma, Karma etc under core concpets section. A better place to put the verbiage may be in the denominations section with 'In fact, many Hindus will not claim to belong to any denomination at all, and consider belief about what God/Gods to worship a personal matter' or perhaps under 'Nature of God'.

My understanding is that Buddhism rejects the Vedas and hence do fall under the vedic tradtion/sanatana dharma a.k.a hinduism. Most of your examples of non-rejection of any ideas speak to the tolerance of Hinduism to other ideas but not to acceptance. There are likewise many such examples in other religions - see in Buddhism Especially in the West, many people who are devoutly Buddhist may also consider themselves as Christian, Muslim or Jewish, or belonging to some other religious group.

When I mention scriptures I mean mainly, the Mahabharata, Ramayana, Vedas, Upanishads, and Gita. Major philosophies and figures in the religion are refuted by refering to these scriptures. You are digressing into social issues not core ideology or dieties worshipped. I agree that Hinduism is not static but there was strong tradition of debates etc among scholars and most major philosophies are attempted to be proven with scriptural support. Again, not a free for all.

Hinduism is a bit amorphous and with so many different ideologies, it is hard to reach common ground. You say, 'the intro carries is restrictive and insufficient. It belittles Hinduism. It promotes fractitiousness. ' While there may be a few contentious issues in it I don't think it deserves the condemnation you give it. Perhaps we can work within the existing framework to get acceptable wording on the problem sentences. Also keep in mind, the structure of the page has been arrived after much deliberation and change, with contributing editors from different points of views. Also, the intro was kept brief and generalized to accomodate many points of views. All differences are attempted to be tackled in the subtopics. --Pranathi 03:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism changes

For most part, I do not disagree with you at all. I am also leaning towards Advaita Vedanta—but Advaitism certainly does not mean atheism!!!!!! The edits you made were removed because they were unencyclopedic. Thats not the way to write in an encyclopedia. Introduction has to be short, and pertaining to what "most Hindus" will believe . You were trying to club up your own views in the introductory para. Whatever you had mentioned was essentially explained in the subsequent sections-so whats the need of repitition? Certainly Hinduism is an evolving series of thoughts--and such things have been given due mention. I also know that generalized Hinduism includes Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism and tribal animism. But here we are to discuss only mainstream Hinduism , ie, only that Hinduism which stems from the Vedic tradition. Otherwise in such an already long article, we'd have to make Hinduism worth 100 pages. And nowhere have I said that Hinduism sprang into existance on 3102 BCE or such nasty dates. The date given were those as agreed upon by historians - c 4000 yrs ago. And as for your astrology, not everyone believes in it. And as for atheism, it is also mentioned in the section on etymology.

And the theory of Buddhavatara is not very wonderful. The Puranas say that Vishnu took Buddhavatar to "spread lies" and false teachings among the asuras so that they maybe mislead and won over by the demigods. This is offensive and exactly the opposite of the Buddhist views of Buddha : the Buddhist do not consider Buddh tobe any god or avatar; but they believe his teachings to be true and moral. Remember, we agree that Hindus may have any belief or disbelief, but we do need to make certain generalized statements for the article.

If you wish, you could visit the page on Advaita Vedanta, mostly made by me. Cygnus_hansa 14:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hindu talk page

As asked by you I am contesting anti-hindu messages in the page, especially by Social Worker, and I intend to make a mince meat of him. You watch. Please do tell me whether I am doing it well?Aupmanyav 14:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I think you are doing great. To make the kind of comments User:SocialWorker has made, it takes more than just ignorance. Its almost as if s/he has deep-rooted hatred. I strongly suspect this person is a christian (or a fresh convert) or works for some missionary masquerading as a social service organisation. S/he is only using Buddhism, Jainism & Sikhism as a sort of shield to make derogatory comments/changes on Hinduism (which makes sense since this article is open to the world to read and anything in an encyclopedia must be factual), so that no body should give it back to him out of respect for these religions. I would also point out that this person has immense patience to keep arguing, so after a while it would be best to simply ignore him/her. Rohitbd 13:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Social Worker

Today I have completed replies to all messages by Social Worker on talk: Hindu page. I will reply to any further messages that the worm posts and I am fully capable of doing that. Why is this issue not raised with the Wikipedia and Hindu page managers? When would that be done and what the Wiki rules about it are? Aupmanyav 15:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for taking the effort to counter this guy. I have been following the talk page and I must congratulate you for beating this guy flat. As to why the issue hasn't been raised with admins, I guess the problem is perhaps Hindus who read it do not find anything out of the ordinary, the reason for this (I presume) is that not many have an in-depth knowledge of Hinduism (even I don't claim to have much knowledge). Add to that the usual upbringing (?) which has made most Hindus complacent....i.e., they simply don't care if someone bullshits about Hinduism. Indeed, if you see most Hinduism articles have major inputs from non-Hindus. In my humble opinion, most Hindus have a very negative view about the caste-system - it has been hammered into their heads since childhood that it is made for exploitation, it is discriminatory, etc., in our schools. Nowhere is the purpose or history of it taught properly. As a result all of us have grown up with no clear-cut idea of what it is to be a Hindu - IMHO whatever is taught is through the glasses of non-Hindu mind-set. That said, I did raise the issue with a couple of wikipedians and we have rung the alarm bells regarding socialworker. Also there is no strict rule as to when an admin must be contacted, and I do expect that at some point they may have been informed - but after a while, all the arguing simply gets too long-winded and people lose interest. However the category Indian administrators lists all Indian admins and we can contact one who is a Hindu. I hope for once we can write the article to be "from the horse's mouth" so to speak, instead of some non-Hindu view of what it should be. Thanks once again for taking the time to set things right. Rohitbd 19:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have notified admins Gurubrahma & Sundar regarding the on-going tiff. Rohitbd 19:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the clarification, Aupmanyav, I knew that Sarva Khalvidam Brahma' meant that(Whole universe is 'Brahman') but I wasn't sure.

Regards,

Raj2004 02:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You say, that you are an advaitin who believes in 'Sarva Khalvidam Brahma but then say you're an atheist? I am confused?

Raj2004 02:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Yes, Aupmanyav But don't advaiatans recognize a God as Saguna Brahman

Raj2004 02:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism page

Please visit my various comments and questions on talk:Hinduism page, directed unto you.Cygnus_hansa 07:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Hinduism

Hinduism is criticized based on past or current regressive social customs such as Casteism, Sati, and Dowry.

What is mentioned in Hindu scriptures is 'Varna'. The system was not be very different from feudalism and other traditions throughout the world, where society was divided in priests, warriors, merchants, and workers. What was radically different was the underlying thought, that happiness does not come by running after material riches. 'Aparigraha' (non-possessiveness) is an important part of all eastern religions. Most people in west who have no definition of success in life other than amassing wealth and will find this idea unintelligible.

The situation in historical times was different in Hindu society. Nobody was so poor as to be starving. It was a self-sufficient society. If a person could serve his parents in their old age, raise his children in his heriditary trade, and remain away from vices, he was supposed to have lived a successful life. Castes did entail some norms to be observed, which were not oppressive in history. Please do not look at Indian society with the colored glasses of nineteenth or twentieth century when the indigenous system was destroyed by colonialism. And note that at one time there was flexibility in the system.

It must also be noted that there is a big element of self-creation in the Caste-system. A brahmin family hailing from Maharashtra with their own tradition, language, food habits; may not like their son or daughter to marry with a girl or a boy from a Kashmiri brahmin family with different tradition, language, and food habits, though they may belong to the same level of social heirarchy. Castes were created by people on basis of their tribal origins, language, region of residence, traditions.

It must be noted that at one time there was flexibility in the system. Where the scriptures had verses supporting caste system, they have equal number of verses affirming the equality of men. It is debatable what was part of the original document and what was interpolated.

If Hinduism includes polytheistic thought and accepts idol worship, I do not know what objections people may have against it. It is our belief. How come belief in one God (which also is accepted by Hinduism) is better than belief in many. Similarly, how come you can have pictures, symbols, stones and pillars; but not idols. And idols were supposed many times to be only a help in focussing attention in God. Hinduism has no reason to apologistic for its polytheism. The most abused is the linga symbol for worship of Shiva. It is a very simple symbol, which anyone, even a child can make with its hands. When we prepare logos for businesses, do we not look for a simple easily reproduceable logo?

Sati was a region specific malpractice at a certain period of time. Its incidence in other regions was very low. Dowry is a current malpractice which has come with materialism. In olden days, a family could give what it could afford and what it would like to their daughter. She was not sent empty-handed and it was not our way to ask for a share from her father's property. The dowry was considered her personal property. The bridegroom's family did not touch it, it was considered below anybodies dignity to covet it. The Indian government has very strict laws against dowry, but the culture of corruption nullifies them. Though media is very strong in India and is doing a commendable job against these malpractices.

Another criticism is directed towards the rise of Hindu nationalism or Hindutva in India. There are various reasons for it. The foremost is christian evangelism. Nobody likes their numbers to be reduced. Another reason is the creation of Pakistan and breaking up of what hindus considered the natural boundaries of India. The muslims were under no threat to their religion or their occupations. Creation of Pakistan caused massacre of hundreds of thousands of Hindus and displacement of millions of them. Hindus question whether independence was fair to them. This was excerbated by the partisan attitude of the Indian National Congress, the ruling party which created favourable laws for muslims but interfered adversely in Hindu laws. You may note that Salman Rushdie's book was banned in India as a threat to public peace but Hussain's naked Saraswati was not. Another fact is that during the muslim rule many temples were destroyed. How do you explain huge mosques exactly at the places which are considered the most pious by Hindus? Some of the Hindus would like a return of these places. You must note that majority of Hindus do not support this action and would let bygone be bygone. Aupmanyav 17:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The majority of Hindus do support Hindutva ("Hinduness"), I think they at least want Ram Janmabhoomi, Kashi Vishwanath, and Krishna Janmabhoomi. As for Somnath, we beat the enemies of India up, and reconquered it from the oppressors.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brahman

no, I think you are not too far off; except that there was no concept of Brahman in the contemporary sense. Brahman meant more or less "prayer" or "invocation". But you may well be right that it was by concact with Indian native traditions that it changed its meaning to something deeper or, or from magic to mysticism. But it is difficult do say much about it. Since the change is not in the Rigveda, but it appears to be in the Atharvaveda, it would appear that it went together with the expansion of Vedic culture from the Punjab to the Gangetic plain in the early Iron Age, say 1000 BC, but it is of course possible to disagree about this. dab (ᛏ) 09:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism: The Science

First of all I will like to state that I agree with most of the Aupmanyav's views.The most beautiful thing about Hinduism is that it is not exclusive, at the same time it do command some very basic principles which demarcate it from other religions.

Hinduism is the most scientific religion in this world. Hinduism supports big bang. Before there was only energy and the closest a man can get to it is 'OM' (The mantra,The sound energy). When you chant 'OM' your inner energy is in close resonance with that devine energy which is forever. Due to this resonance you dissipate maximum power and you get 'purified' from inside. This devine energy gave rise to Shiva(the creator as well as the destroyer) and Shakti(the ultimate 'storehouse' of energy or in other words the devine mother). When Shiva and shakti unified they gave rise to this world. Thus as a basic principle, unlike other religions, Hinduism believe in equality and importance of both male and female. In fact we Hindus worship the 'Mother'. If we have a closer look we worship the male-female union. The Mohini episode, The Krishna ras lila with gaupis and many more supports this point.All the present day furor about 'Sex' being against the culture of India is infact that sex is against the 'present day culture' and not the 'Hindu religion'. By the present day culture I mean the culture that took its shape due to impact of Christian and Muslim invaders who treat women and sex as anti religious from the word go.

Hinduism as a principle supports evolution. And evolution of not only living but nonliving as well. Hinduism requires a Hindu to practice and protect the Dharma(duty,right action). According to Gita karma is the most basic form of Dharma. We must concentrate and practice our karma without thinking of what fruits it will bear. As stated earlier this world is made up of energy. Energy exists in many forms like life,sound,heat etc. Energy can never be created nor be destroyed; It can only be transferred from one form to another. When we die, the energy driving us gets recycled and gets redistributed to millions and millions of living and nonliving things. This is rebirth. Each form of energy has its corresponding characteristic. For example we can distinguish heat energy,sound energy etc. based on these characteristics. Our karma moulds the characteristics of our 'life energy'. When we do 'evil' things our life energy comes in contact with 'negative' energy and when we do 'good' things it comes in contact with 'positive' energy. These contacts gradually reshape the characteristic of our life energy. When it gets redistributed the bearer share these characterstics.In this way our karma helps in evolving. The Hindu belief that all are made up of panchtatva reinforces this idea because ultimately the energy that constitute us is sourced from both living as well as nonliving. (For example living source is the father and the mother while nonliving is the food we eat etc.)

I understand that many of you will not agree with my ideas but your views are always welcome. Even if you do not agree with my ideas, I believe you will agree with the subject "Hinduism: The science".

[edit] Wiki Hindu Pages Forum

There's no one there.--D-Boy 19:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch

it's up for afd. help us.--D-Boy 10:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I had to revert your latest edits to this page. The discussion had already been closed, and it is a good idea to cite specific certain edits/actions that BhaiSaab did which you disagree with, so they can be addressed rather than people getting angry because of attacks. Feel free to reply at my talk page if you have any questions or complaints about BhaiSaab's behaviour - it is already been discussed there along with the activities of a few other people involved in this. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Countering systemic bias in Hindu-related articles

Hi, I'm setting up this project as a child project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion. Will you be a part of this, per your "fundy list" discussions? --^Babub→Talk 11:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] atheism

aup, i did agree with you that atheistic schools such as samkya existed. see in talk-hinduism

Raj2004 10:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC) samkya is an atheistic school. I don't know why you disagreed.

Raj2004 10:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Yes, I agree with you about organization of the Hinduism page!

Raj2004 10:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

even you seem to agree, atleast in your user page, that you can be a hindu and a athiest. but the current definition of hinduism on wikipedia denies you that right.nids 11:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem user

Hi. I'm a new user who looked at the article on Hinduism and saw that a bad user (anonymous ip address) has been vandalizing the article saying that Hindus are Nazis and such. I saw the talk page and your rebuttal and was impressed. I looked at this anon user's contribs history here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=61.3.165.195

and saw that (s)he did this sort of vandalism to nazi articles and others. Some of the changes got reverted, but others did not so I reverted them and put warning template in his user page after I read the help pages on wikipedia. He might be back though so please to watch these articles. Thanks.Hkelkar 11:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism in Hinduism

i started this article. i think you will do a better job for finding references and in its expansion.--nids (♂) 15:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I will try. Though I am not very organised. Aupmanyav 15:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we can mention them as most of them are happy to be called Hindus. They go to Hindu temples and vice versa. If you go out of the country and want vegetarian food, you refer to it as Hindu Jain food. There are separatist elements, granted. But still most of them do not consider themselves as non-hindus. But if you are removing here, then i think we should remove that from main Hinduism article too.--nids (♂) 18:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that way, then it should be removed from main Hinduism article. But i think for Atheism in Hinduism it will be required, because otherwise, there can be a view to exclude carvaka from hinduism too. nids (♂) 05:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You are just proving my point. I feel it wouldnt be right that Just because some Sikhs are separatist, we should not include them. You must be knowing that there are marriages between Hindu and jains and sikhs and Hindus. Most are proud for the philosophical diversity. As for Caravaka, i am not saying that they would have objected to their inclusion in Hinduism. The peoples who are objecting are our fellow friends, who want to define Hinduism in such a way so as to restrict it to shat astik darshan.nids (♂) 05:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not forcing them, just including their philosophy as an alternate hindu philosophy. I accept that you can remove the line from main Hinduism article, But when it comes to philosophy parts, they should not be alienated.nids (♂) 06:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism

A rider? What do you mean by that?Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you can help here

this is up for deletion. May be you can give some counterarguments as you said once that you are an atheist and a hindu.nids (♂) 21:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization (Hinduism)

Namasteji,

I am very keen to reorganize the fundamental structure and nature of content in Hinduism, and have been having a very small discussion on it with HeBhagawan here, and because I have noticed your other comments in that discussion page, would also like to hear your thoughts on the subject.

Namahsivaya,
Sujeet.
Saiva suj 05:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Diwali

[edit] Raj Yog

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)

[edit] Kama & Artha are lower Purusharths is a wrong statement.

One could say for deploring Kama & Artha as lower Purusharths. It could have been said, just to make people move to Dharma & Moksha. Lot of Sanyasees try to deplore Kama & Artha, particularly Jain Sadhus try to create hate in the minds of people living family life.

Does one not need money to do one's religious duties or support Sanyasees or Brahmins or religious institutions? Krishna has said in Srimad Bhagawad Geeta that "Kama" is my "Vibhuti." In Hindu doctrines "Kama" is supported confining sexual pleasure with one's wedded spouse in the witness of fire (A form of God), Brahmin and society. Is it possible to conquer "Kama" by any average person? Vishwamitra also sliped. When Krishna declared "Kama" as Krishna's "Vibhuti" who are we to deplore "Kama"? Indian has n' number of Sanyasees. With due respect to Swami Bhaskaranandji, I say that anything said in a particular situation or a context should not be incorporated in an article like Wikipedia which shall remain on a public forum for a long long future. Hope everyone will see the damage being done to Hindusim and restrain from continuing with statements deploring 4 pursuits of life. Swadhyayee 14:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hinduism"

[edit] Saguna Brahman

In advaita vedanta, saguna brahman means personal God. I don't know what other traditions do.

Raj2004 02:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replied

I have replied in Hinduism Talk page. Cygnus_hansa 14:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Namaskar. I reverted your edits because I thought that part of it was too controversial.

Hindus do not consider Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism (which originated in India) as different from them, though the adherents of these faiths may differ in this respect.

I personally don't disagree with this statement that much but it is a big assumption to say all Hindus consider Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as part of Hinduism because I know many Hindus who will say that these faiths definitely are not part of Hinduism. Some examples are Hindus in Punjab, who regard Sikhism as a very different religion to themselves especially after the Khalistan incident. Even on Wikipedia, there are Hindus who have arguments and fights with Buddhists in particular Ambedkar's Buddhists. These types of Hindus (which unfortunately exist) would definitely disagree with your edit.

However I am ready to ask the other Hinduism editors. We can post this on Talk:Hinduism and discuss this further. Thanks Gizza^Chat ^© 06:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think, you have not signed.

Aupmanyavji, I think, you have not signed your last comments on talk page. To distinguish my comments from previous one, I use block text for initial two-three words. Further, I feel you should italicize your translation. If, you write two three short messages instead of one long, it would be read by more people with interest or you can give numbers to your points. Let us also understand what you and Magicalsaumi has to say. Usual time constraint compel to postpone the reading if they are long. The same thing, if seperated in 2-3 messages or by help of serial numbers tend the other editors to read without loss of time. Hope you will modify your last message as no one else should modify your message. swadhyayee 11:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I went back and I suppose, I signed everything that was not signed. Aupmanyav 12:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/p/User_talk%7EAupmanyav_7ddc.html"