User talk:GourangaUK/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello GourangaUK/Archive 1, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Links for Wikipedians interested in India content

Newcomers: Welcome kit | Register: Indian Wikipedians | Network: Noticeboard | Discussionboard Browse: India | Open tasks | Deletions
Contribute content: Collaboration Dashboard - India WikiProject - Wikiportal India - Indian current events - Category adoptions


India-related tasks | Indian noticeboard
v • e • d • h • w
v • e • d • h • w

--Pamri • Talk 03:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nityananda

There have been several copy-paste vandals who are pasting a lot of content from various religious sites. Would you please keep an eye on the article, please? Thanks. --Ragib 10:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bhagvad Gita

I have modified yr changes in Bhagwad Gita. The ref to the Hindu Bible is unwarranted since this is not an article on comparative religion. I think the Gita can stand on its own even in the Western world, without support from the Bible. The ref. to the basic gist of the conversation btw Krishna and Arjun is very important from an introductory contextual viewpoint. Hence reintroduced

Pizzadeliveryboy 18:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I take your point on the 'Hindu Bible' reference. I was trying to give a feeling for the Gita's significance to anyone unfamiliar with it, but it's not essential. I've changed the line about Krishna's Divine form to be more in line with the events in chapter 11:

"O greatest of all personalities, O supreme form, though I see You here before me in Your actual position, as You have described Yourself, I wish to see how You have entered into this cosmic manifestation. I want to see that form of Yours."

"If You think that I am able to behold Your cosmic form, O my Lord, O master of all mystic power, then kindly show me that unlimited universal Self."

GourangaUK 10:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

A Belated Hello re: the date issues - appreciate your suggestions. Savyasaachi 09:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] literal grammatical meaning of the word Bhagvad Gita

Please see Grammatical meaning of the word Bhāgvad Gitā for details.

Pizzadeliveryboy 13:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have only undertaken a literal translation of the words - I know that the phrase Song from the mouth of God is better put as Song of God but my intention was to put across the literal, and not implied meaning - implied/figurative meanings can be left to the reader to discern. Moerover, Bhagvad Gita is actually a single word sandhi - the half-d at the end of Bhagvad and G from the beginning of Gita form a single sandhi, though this has been twisted in English transliterations to form 2 words - so the title is really Bhāgvađgiţa - which according to the rules of Sandhi come out to be Bhāgvaţ Giţa - Bhāgvaţ is the Apādān case declinsion of the root Bhagvan meaning from (the mouth of) Bhagvan - note the terms in paranthesis is implied here, since thats the only way speech can be conveyed, though it can be ignored.
Pizzadeliveryboy 17:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Gen2oo 20:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Why were the changes in article "Bhagavad Gita" reverted? Ref: 07:56, 20 April 2006 GourangaUK m (→On Raja Yoga - rv quotation changes)

Hello Gen2oo - I reverted the changes because that section is a referenced QUOTATION. Obviously a quotation shouldn't be edited, then it's no longer a quotation. After another check today I don't think that's the first time the quote was edited. Maybe you could add another quote also if you feel something extra about the meditation method needs to be added? --GourangaUK 08:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello GourangaUK, I agree that it is a QUOTATION, therefore it cannot be changed. My point in changing the quotation was to clarify the commonly held misconception -- made worse by repeated mis-translation -- that one should gaze at the "tip" of one's nose BG 6.13-14 - http://vedabase.net/bg/6/13-14/en1 . If you read and analyze the original Sanskrit -- the word is "nasika agram" -- which does NOT mean "tip" of the nose -- though in a loose (and AFAICT wrong) translation it may imply so. To clarify this further -- (a). Traditional Yogic meditation uses similar technique, but with the focus being at the root (agram = begining) of the nose, NOT the tip! (b). Appealing to the logical sense: if one were to concentrate ones gaze at the "tip" of the nose, one would end up cross-eyed and tired well before the time it takes to recite the shloka itself! If you have any suggestions on the best way to have this mentioned in the Raj-yoga section please let me know or better yet, please make the changes yourself. Thanks! Gen2oo
Hi Gen2oo - I'm not really in a position to question the exact meaning of the Sanskrit, and would guess there are a few opinions on the matter. GourangaUK

[edit] ISKCON

Gouranga:

I didn't like your wholesale revert of my edits to the ISKCON article. Instead of just reverting, could you please modify on what I'm trying to build, which is an article for everyone, especially those of us (like me) who don't really have a background with Krsna consciousness? I'd like to work with you on this. Leave me a message.

--Defenestrate 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I copyedited the article, and recast everything into encyclopaedic language. For me, this means

  • Third person secular throughout
  • People die (instead of "meeting their maker," "going to Heaven," or "departing this physical realm)
  • Technical terms about religious beliefs are explained in common parlance
  • Beliefs themselves belong to believers, and are beliefs instead of understandings

I also chucked a bunch of crime/sex abuse babble, and moved the list of ideological controversies under the heading it seemed to fit under.

Please note that I am disinterested in the subject. I've had some great food at a few temples in my time, but I don't have a very strong opinion about ISKCON because I'm Buddhist. I just want the facts here, no evangelism. --Defenestrate 00:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Defenestrate - I agree with your above points, and will go through the edits in detail incase I can see anything which appears incorrect from my perspective, and it can be discussed. I've been involved with Iskcon for over 10 years and have also read much external scholarly input on the movement. I can see you motivation is to improve the article. I strongly feel that the philosopy of Iskcon should be presented on this page as first and foremost Iskcon is a philosophical 'religious' movement, but it should be in a scholarly, 'neutral' way where possible, I agree. Best wishes, GourangaUK 20:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names of God

What I still don't get is why you seem to suggest one can be a Christian (in terms of faith, the First Commandment says ONE God) and think there is more then one God (or none)- or do you mean that otherwise? Fastifex 11:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fastifex, - I'm assuming this is a personal question and not regarding the content of the Names of God page? I personally see it like this:

Although different people around the world may describe the sun in varying ways with different languages we can easily understand that in truth it is the same sun which rises each morning in all parts of the globe. Similarly although God is given many different names and titles by different peoples it is to be understood that as the Supreme Person He is above all sectarian notions of 'Religion' and it is the same God being worshipped by the majority of people around the planet. In my opinion Jehovah, Allah, Hare Krishna, and many other such Names mentioned on the page, are all names for the same Supreme Being - God. --GourangaUK 15:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • No, as a Wikipedian I never ask for another contributor's personal opinions, which I consider as irrelevant as my own. Your 'comparison' does not work: a) except as a term in astronomy for stars (there are double stars, but that's a relatively recent finding) there is undoubtedly only one sun, belief in it is physically self-evident, not a point of faith, but the existence of one or more gods scientifically impossible to (dis)prove; b) while belief in one God is crucial to Christianity (and other Monotheistic faiths), and in the age Christianity, and to a lesser extent Islam, originated, Polytheism was a very serious rival (e.g. Roman pagan persecution), forms of sun worship are often polytheistic. There is no personal interest -I don't emotionally care for any religious creed, just know Catholicism best because of my cultural background-, but that is irrelevant, we're describing the Christian practice in this section. The question whether monotheistic religions venerate the same God by another name is a matter of attitude: the presently 'fashionable' oecumenic one says so, the 'purist' alternative is to say there is only one 'true' God who founded one creed (any fits here), all others are blasphemous. Calling one's god 'just' God can be a Monotheistic statement to point out it is the only God, even one of many ways to 'christianiaze' pre-existing pagan practices and terms (as for example elements of pagan divinity cults got converted into veneration of 'parallel' saints). Fastifex 07:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to your own opinions, I'm still at a loss as to how this is relevent to any of the actual page content? I merely tried to improve the English in the sentence you added, which someone else has since removed anyway? From my perspective a 'religion' which doesn't prove the existence of God in practice sounds somewhat bizarre. God is surely a physical reality to His pure servants (i.e Jesus). --GourangaUK 09:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Working on the ISKCON article

Hey, I've been working on the ISKCON article in my sandbox, trying to clean it up as much as possible. This is my progress so far [[1]]. I've taken a lot of double-upped information out, and information that is present on other pages (eg there was a lot of information about the mantra). Let me know what you think, and perhaps if you want to adjust what i've done (create your own sandbox, paste, save, and then edit so I can see your changes), we might be able to get the article up to some sort of decent standard. Also, I have stuck << >> around anything I think needs changed. I hope we can work on this together. Dwayne Kirkwood 01:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vedic chant

I don't mean to sound rude but why did you revert my changes to the maha mantra section of the Vedic chant article? I was using the official IAST transliteration, whereas the English approximations (like rar-mah) are really not accurate at all. And Aum is not pronounced as in home - its more like the o in horse (RP) but longer, although it's officially a diphthong. --Grammatical error 05:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Grammatical error - I just thought it looked more messy on the page with the new layout style. Got nothing particulary against the IAST, although Aum has always been pronounced as in hOME whenever I have come across it in India and elsewhere? GourangaUK 08:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? Do you pronounced home with a long o as opposed to the /əʊ/ diphthong? --Grammatical error 15:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No - like in home, but obviously much longer ... I've never heard of a diphthong?? Best Wishes GourangaUK 15:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tesco / Juggernaut

Hi - there's a debate ongoing about the suitability of the Tesco example on the Juggernaut page. I wondered if you'd be able to contribute, on Talk:Juggernaut? Thanks. --Oscarthecat 06:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

My editing of the article so as to place the image in the normal place, remove duplicate links from the "see also" section, remove the PoV term "charismatic", etc., have been reverted wholesale by you. Could you explain this, please? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mel, to be honest I had difficulty in seeing the exact details of your edits because you had moved the sections around quite considerably, the page had no major issues previously so I reverted the whole lot. Having now gone through them in detail I agree that the layout does look much better, so apologies for the wholescale revert. However I disagree with removing the term charismatic, as it's a fact that Prabhupada was a charismatic leader. It's not POV.GourangaUK 15:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Calling him charismatic involves the claim that he had a special power or personal quality of an inspirational kind (originally divinely-bestowed); that is clearly PoV.
There's no need for "presently", incidentally; it actually means "in a short while", or "soon", but in any case the present-tense verb is sufficient. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, one other thing: the "see also" section of articles is for links that don't already appear elsewhere in the text. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mel - but clearly a man who manages to lead a movement of many thousands of people is inspirational! Also I see no harm in mentioning the Hare Krishna link twice. Of course I known what 'presently' means being a native English speaker. GourangaUK 17:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. You miss the point; the term "charismatic" is inherently PoV.
  2. You miss the point; "see also" means "see also", not "see what's already been linkd to".
  3. You miss the point; "presently" made no sense in the context, and was in any case unnecessary. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mel - I really do not think I'm missing your point - I am disagreeing with it, that's all.

  • Charismatic refers to someone who inspires others - most leaders of society have this to a certain extent. Srila Prabhupada even from a neutral perspective was obviously very inspirational in his leadership, that's a fact.
  • In terms of 'See Also', this is a very minor point of procedure, what's the problem with mentioning Hare Krishna twice on the page in case someone missed it in the text?
  • I have changed 'presently' (as in something which is happening in the present) and used the term 'currently' instead - this is to emphasise the fact that in the past Srila Prabhupada managed affairs himself, whereas now the GBC manage ISKCON.

I hope this clarifies the matter. Best Wishes & Hare Krishna, ys GourangaUK 14:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  1. What is "obvious" is always pretty dubious; that's why we have WP:CITE.
  2. I've responded to this.
  3. I believe that the use of "presently" to mean "now" is U.S. English, but neither is needed; the present tense does the job pefectly well. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Hinduism

You may consider joining this project. Thanks GizzaChat © 09:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BGAII

Hi GourangaUK, I saw your recent edits on BGAII. Good job making it more encyclopedic. I noticed also your revert of my edits. Well, aren't significant parts of his purports, the examples he gives, etc. his original work, based on his own viewpoint? deeptrivia (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deeptrivia, although it may appear so at an initial reading - after many years of studying BGAIII and other Vaishnava literatures I'm fully of the opinion that Prabhupada included none of his own viewpoints - everything he says is either from scripture, from Vaishnava acharyas, or from famous philosophers such as Chanakya Pandit. It's really a work of presenting Bhagavad gita and Gaudiya Vaishnavism to the world, more than creating anything of his own philosophy. Ys, GourangaUK 16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Articles

Gaura. I was thinking that perhaps we could work together on starting some new articles, Vaisnava related, as there is quite a few that it would be nice to have. An example : Haridas Thakura. Others could include temples in Vraja, and other important Vaisnava related personalities and locations that don't have pages. Let me know what you think, if you have time. Ys Dwayne Kirkwood 09:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reincarnation

I have merged part of your work on this page into the old structure; hopefully the best of both worlds results. Best wishes! Hgilbert 13:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism

Links for Wikipedians interested in Hindu content

Welcome kit

Register

Network

Contribute content

--D-Boy 02:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vegeterianism

Thank you for your contibutions however your link to vegetarian-restaurants.net/OtherInfo/SpiritualReasonVegetarian.htm was inappropriate. --Mig77 10:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I only added the website [2] in answer to someone else's request for a citation (the article below the ads is very informative) - I can assure you it is not my own private website...lol. If you'd rather it not be linked on the page I have no problem at all with that. GourangaUK 10:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks the new link is more appropriate --Mig77 08:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna Page

Hari, I've taken a shot at cleaning up the Krishna page a bit on my sandbox, please review and feel free to edit... Thanks! Ys Dwayne Kirkwood 03:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Not true for all cases" on Buddhist rebirth and reincarnation.

Which do you think from your understanding is Buddhist rebirth the same as Vedic based reincarnation? And if you're refering to the Tibetan rebirth, their concept is different from Vedic. No soul/self reincarnates in Buddhism. Monkey Brain 16:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

From my reading I was of the opinion that some Buddhist schools say there is no individual soul (the majority); some say there is neither a soul, nor not a soul (less popular); and then others say there is a soul but that it's exact nature is inconceivable (small minority). With the third one being the same as the general Vedic conception of the jiva. Then within Hinduism there are minority branches who are almost in line with the first and second Buddhist views as listed above.
From your experience which parts of the above would you agree and disagree with? I suppose it could be argued that some confusion on both sides may be due to 'mixing' between the two philosophies with classical understandings being the 'pure' forms in which case maybe it's best left out of the introduction as you say? Best Wishes, GourangaUK 09:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
"There is neither a soul, nor a not soul." This is simply putting it in one sentence, I guess.
"There is a soul, but it's exact nature is inconceivable." I disagree with this. Buddhist explored the nature of soul/self issuue and pinned it down to the five Skandhas (5 aggregates which make up an individual). So it is conceivable in Buddhism. And the nature of the soul is stated in the Anatta (No(n)-self), that there is no permanent, death-enduring soul. So not in a way similar to Vedic jiva.
I suppose it should be noted that half-Buddhists (i.e. Buddhism and Hinduism) are not the best source for getting infos on what Buddhism is about. Monkey Brain 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
And I also suppose you wouldn't mind if I change it back to the before, would you? Monkey Brain 06:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm tending to agree with you that it sounds like more of a mixed Buddhist-Hindu idea after searching around on the net and have no problems with it being changed back. Regards, GourangaUK 11:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mridangam

Sir,Thank you for your contibutions however your link to http://www.chantandbehappy.com/drum/index.html was inappropriate. There it is being described about an instrument called Khol and not Mridangam. --Bharadwaj R Sathavalli 06:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that what you understand as a Khol is also known as a Mridangam in many parts of India. For example see the following link: Mridanga and Web India. Maybe we could mention this also in the article, or split the two articles completely? Best Wishes, GourangaUK 09:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sir, In the best interest of providing accurate information on Wikipedia, it is advisable that we do not mis-quote facts here. Khol is a different instrument all by itself and just comparable to Mridangam. In same light hundreds of instruments are similar to Mridangam and we should not quote them as a form of Mridangam. I will change the title and put it as see also and not as form playing Mridangam. --Bharadwaj R Sathavalli 11:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dasa versus Prabhu

Hare Krishna. I was curious on your position on weather articles on non-sanyasi devotees should be ended with 'dasa' or 'Prabhu'. I note the few Mataji articles all end with 'devi dasi', and imho I think that the 'Prabhu' articles should be changed to 'dasa' to meet this. However, i'm not sure, but perhaps this will create an offense. So, I am curious to know what you think. Ys, Dwayne Kirkwood 03:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dwayne, in my opinion it should always be 'dasa' or 'devi dasi' in Wikipedia articles (Or 'Swami', 'Prabhupada', 'Mahaprabhu' where appropriate) and not 'Prabhu' which I'd class as more of a complimentary term. A possible comparison could be in Christianity where you might call someone 'the Reverend Bishop XYZ', but when translated to Wiki language I'm assuming it would become simply 'Bishop XYZ', and I'd put Prabhu in the same 'reverend' category. Hope this helps... Best Wishes, ys GourangaUK 12:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Gaura, thanks for the incite, i'll edit pages accordingly. What is your thoughts on 'Srila' Prabhupada? Ys, Dwayne Kirkwood 18:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hari! I'd say the same for use of 'Srila' and 'Sri'. Couldn't imagine the encyclopedia Brittanica using them in an article? Would you agree? Ys, GourangaUK 08:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Hari Bol Gaura and Dwayne Prabhus!

Sorry to have 'butted-in' to this 'conversation' but i am glad to see a constructive dialogue going on here and with your permission, would like to add my humble opinion to the discussion. (Dwayne Prabhu and I are somewhat familiar with each other, i hope, thanks to our discussion preceding this topic (see discussion))

IMHO, although in one sense the use of words, 'Sri', 'Srila' or 'Prabhu' does not qualify for encyclopaedic purposes, the reasoning (as above) however, falls short of perfection; of course, assuming a 'perfect reasoning' is possible.

Names of famous personalities, what to speak of the divine names, are commonly associated with more than one names or bynames, which in-turn become synonymous with their 'real' names. IMHO, the usage of a particular name in one encyclopaedia therefore cannot be justified by merely giving a reference to another encyclopaedia but should rather be formulated on its cultural/historical context.

For example, on Wikipedia, the article on Lord Chaitanya appears under 'Chaitanya Mahaprabhu', whereas on the encyclopaedia Britannica it is listed simply under 'Caitanya. The same is true about the article on Gandhi which, on Wikipedia, appears under 'Mahatma Gandhi’ but appears as 'Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand' on the encyclopaedia Britannica. However, i have a feeling that many people would disagree if we were to change the names to the way they appear in the latter.

Now, on the other hand, the article on (Lord) Jesus shows under the words 'Jesus Christ' in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911 Edition). It is hardly worth pointing out that the word 'Christ' is an honorific; hence, in a way roughly equal to the words in discussion here, Sri/Srila/Prabhu etc. So, imho, the usage of honorifics such as Sri/Srila etc can be justified in certain cases (Srila Prabhupada/Srimad Bhagvatam/Mahatma Gandhi) as long as we don’t base our view-point on how these words might be used in one encyclopaedia or another, Especially if that view-point refers to an encyclopaedia which is essentially written from a Western perspective.

Sorry to have taken such a long time to illustrate my point. Thank you for reading. Any views/opinions would be highly welcomed.

Hare Krishna

--MSharma 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Hello User:MSharma, thanks for the adding into the dialogue. It's a good point you make on comparisons with the Encyclopedia Brittanica. We are a bit more free I suppose on Wikipedia with such titles but I'd differentiate the usage of titles with Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Mahatma Gandhi and Jesus Christ as opposed to the general usage of Sri, Srila & Prabhu. I believe that in these instances the honorific titles have transcended their original usage and become known as part of the person's actual name or title (as also with A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami, who is almost always referred to as Prabhupada, even in Newspapers and articles etc...) and are actually useful in identifying the actual person in question; (i.e there are many Gandhi's, but only one 'Mahatma Gandhi' - and he is much more well known by this than by his official birth name.)
Whereas titles such as Prabhu, Sri or Srila are in 99% of cases not at all helpful in identifying the person in question. They are used to show respect to the person in question by certain people only, and not part of their general title. For example Sri Vaishnavism makes sense, it's part of the name, but 'Srila Prabhupada' I feel would be innapropriate, as would 'Srimad Bhagavatam', with A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and Bhagavata Purana being the more offical usage in these instances. Other users on Wikipedia would most likely delete them (or already have done).
Would you agree with the above? Best Wishes, ys, GourangaUK 08:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Prabhu,

Hare Krishna. Yes, i fully agree with your reasoning and my views are essentially non-different to others with regard to using honorific titles for encyclopaedic purposes, as i hoped to have made clear in my comments above. My main aim really was to point-out the 'inconsistencies' one can find between one encyclopaedia and another, as clearly demonstrated in the case of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and others. So to cite a reference to another encyclopaedia, imho, is not always helpful.

I agree with your point that in some cases the names have "transcended their original usage" but isn't it equally possible that it may be only a matter of time before the names now known as, for example, A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada become 'universally' accepted as Srila Prabhupada, as can be seen in the case of Mahatma Gandhi, would you not agree? Of course, that may be some time away and it makes sense to use the now popular names untill then.

However, i couldn’t help notice that, as you say, use of the honorific title (Sri) in case of Sri Vaishnavism ‘makes sense’, this article actually gets re-directed to 'Vaishnavism', on Wikipedia.

Anyhow, i think, it's been a constructive conversation and hope to have more of the same in future. Again, any comments will be gratefully received.

Yours Sincerely,

Manish Sharma

--MSharma 11:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Manish Prabhu. I've fixed the Sri Vaishnavism re-direct you had discovered as well - the page was actually under Srivaishnavism. I knew I'd seen it somewhere! Untill next time, Best Wishes ... ys, GourangaUK 13:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/u/User_talk%7EGourangaUK_Archive_1_4dab.html"