User talk:Priyanath/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Could you please check my recent edits in Hinduism?

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

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

Swadhyayee, I noticed that your recent edits were reverted by Sfacets. I believe he was right in reverting them. I agree with one or two of the edits you made. But for the most part, your phrasing and wording made the concepts much less clear, rather than more clear. There were several grammar and punctuation errors also, to such an extent that Sfacets assumed it was POV pushing. Sfacets is a very good editor, with a very good understanding of language and writing. I would have reverted the edits also, probably without looking at every single one, just because their overall effect was to make the Brahman section much less understandable. That Brahman section, for the most part, is very well written. I imagine it was crafted over time by several editors, refining and tweaking it. Your English writing really does need some work, Swadhyayee. I know your intention is good, but by repeatedly using your 'elbow' as you said in one post, and making ungrammatical and unclear edits, you're trying the patience of other editors - including editors who I consider to be very patient people - like HeBhagavan. Please, consider the advice of others here - post your edits for discussion before making them.
Just a couple of examples. You wrote "The belief that God provides and cares for me tends human to project human's similar relations - mother and/or father upon God." If I didn't already know what was previously written in the article, I wouldn't have any idea what you were trying to say. It was clearly written before. Why did you have to change that? Another example, you wrote "Worshiping God in human form help in seeing the possibility of sublimating an individual to The God's state - imbibe sublimated virtues of God within one's self." I have no idea what you mean with that statement.
The one grammar issue that you actually asked about at Talk:Hinduism, regarding 'on' or 'upon', you may well be right. That's the one edit in your batch of edits that I believe to be correct - but I'm not sure, so I would do what you did (unfortunately after the fact) and post it on the talk page to get people's reactions. Please, if you want to make changes, put them on the talk page first.
I have a great deal of respect for what HeBhagavan has done for the Hinduism article. The article is much much better because of his work: better writing, clearer writing, balanced, and concise. I also have seen that he is very patient and willing to listen to others' points of view. But you have tried his patience to no end. If he's shown impatience with you, I really can't blame him. In fact, he is one of the more patient and kindly editors I've run across on Wikipedia.
There is much good will here, Swadhyayee. Please consider listening to the good, and well-intentioned advice that editors like HeBhagavan have to offer. ॐ Priyanath 05:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Priyanath for your views.

I changed Brahman as in nearly 7 lines para, the word God appeared six times. In most of the case the sentence beginned with the word "God". Whether you agree or not, it does not project good English. If you try to re-read my edits with bit more positive view, hopefully, you will agree that the same was desirable as the extensive use of word "God" was done away with.

There was no rational for projecting fatherhood or motherhood upon God in the earlier writing. I believe, almost all believe that God provides and take our care so it becomes a matter of general knowledge. This sort of boards appear to have been prepared by Christains are seen on doors here in India. This was added to already existing matter and so I feel it could be understood in proper context by readers. My edits provided logic for projecting fatherhood and motherhood upon God. The moment an animate (human or animal) is born, it's care is taken by it's birth giver. The milk is produced in the breasts just a month or two before the offspring is born. The breasts dry when the offspring either learn to prey or child start getting teeth. Isn't it a proof of "God provides".

Regarding, worshiping God, human is imperfect where as God is projected as perfect. The virtues a human desire to imbibe can not be seen in one's Guru even. Whereas one can find the possibility of imbibing most difficult virtues from The God as God (deity) is seen possessing all virtues.

Well, if, you see I was right in use of "upon", I could also be right in so many other things, it's a matter of present knowledge of subject matter of the viewer and efforts to understand.

If, there is punctuation error, it could be corrected by any one. It's no reason to tell anyone that one's English is poor and damaging the overall meaning of an article. I am not able to understand a great deal of article Hinduism even matter of a para which I edit. I just try to give more understanding by my edits. I do not remove or touch a thing which I do not understand as I feel, I do not have the knowledge of subject matter.

God is not only beyond description but beyond perception too. My such edit is also removed. Isn't it an attempt to stick to individual limited knowledge?

In universe, there are three stages of any existence 1) Birth 2) Decay and 3) Death. "Janma, Jara and Mrutyu" God is an exception. So decay has to have a place with change though the word "change" may be covering "decay" as "decay" is the word used by Shashtras.

One place the article was carrying word "entirely accurate". I changed it to accurate as "accurate" does not need adj. entirely. Was the earlier edit right? Was it not a poor grammar or English? Did I make any comment that it was poor English? Did I ever make such comment?

My feeling is "beyond description" is much better than "can not be described" but yet old edits will stay by reverting my edits.

I am not seeing sense in "God's less abstract personal form". Is improving and brevity not needed there?

I am not seeing sense here too: According to the monotheistic and pantheistic theologies of Hinduism, God is, in the highest sense, One: formless, infinite, and eternal. God is changeless and is the very source of consciousness.

What was wrong in my edit "According to the monotheistic and pantheistic theologies of Hinduism, God is formless, infinite, and eternal. God is not subject to change and decay. God is the very source of consciousness. God is beyond time, space, perception and causation and yet permeates everything and every being."

To me "God is source of consciousness is wrong"; I believe it is more right to say that "consciousness is God". If you project God to be Nirgun and Nirakar, how could God be source of consciousness? The God can be felt as consciousness, fire, water, Jnan and so many other things.

Wikipedia policy clearly says not to discourage new editors as they could be assets to Wikipedia. Who knows who will serve Wikipedia longer? No one has right to make incivil comments. The comments of HeBhagawan while I edited for the first time were grossly incivil followed by Apandey. I have strong feeling that Apandey and HeBhagawan are one. You see, HeBhagawan's recent post to Apandey on Apandey's talk page inviting him, inspite of Apandey having involved in incivility against me which complicates issues. You see HeBhagawan having awarded Apandey for contributing to Hinduism and behaving decently. What is Apandey's contribution to Hinduism? Can you check his incivil comments against me on talk page of "Hinduism"? What could be the impression of HeBhagawan while he is awarding without merits?

All this I wrote to you so that things improve and editors get refined along with article.

With my due apology for long post.

Swadhyayee 06:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swadhyayee, I believe the Hinduism article is extremely clear and well written. In spite of your good intentions, I stand by what I said - Sfacets was absolutely correct in reverting your changes. I will be spending what little time I have in only minor punctuation and grammatical changes, because I believe the article does not need major work. Please read this post on the Hinduism talk page. I agree 1000%. Please also see my One and Only Edit for today on the Hinduism page. This is what I think we should all be working on.
Apandey and HeBhagavan are not sockpuppets. Baseless accusations of sockpuppetry is uncivil behavior. Somehow, you and HeBhagavan need to work it out. Sockpuppet accusations is not the way to do that. I think you are a sincere person, with good intentions, and some good ideas. And I think that HeBhagavan deserves an extraordinary amount of credit for what he's done in making the Hinduism article exceptional. When I see someone like him taking on that responsibility, putting out such positive energy in editing, and doing such a good job, my only question to him would be 'what can I do to help you, sir?' I wish you would do the same (and listen to what he says). I say all this to you as someone who wants to help you, so I hope you can listen to it in that spirit. ॐ Priyanath 22:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope you will appreciate my truthful and frank views.

Swadhyayee 11:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swadhyayee, you can report suspected sockpuppets here: WP:SUSPSOCK. An admin can confirm through the IP address whether someone is a sockpuppet. I've seen alot of false sockpuppet accusations on Wikipedia, proven to be false by the admins. Better to let them deal with it.
Yes, everyone has the right to edit Wikipedia. And everyone has the right to change another person's edits. I believe HeBhagavan is greatly improving this article, and prefer to work with him rather than against him. You do as you wish.
Regarding your most recent edits, I would also have reverted all of them. I'll explain why right now, but I won't do this in the future because there are so many. I'll just revert with only an edit comment from now on instead. You can view your your recent edit changes here
1. You reverted my One Big Edit for yesterday, changing 'because' back to 'becasue'. I assume good faith, and that it was just a mistake.
2. You changed "In the home, Hindus usually have a special area" to "In the home, Hindus usually make provision of seperate place in house". The original was shorter, simpler, and clearer. It began with the phrase In the home, so your addition of in the house was redundant and made a short clear sentence longer, confusing, and bad english. Also, provision of made it very unclear, and again was not good English.
3. You changed "Often, devotees bring their own food to the temple" to "Often, devotees visiting the temple bring their own food to the temple". Again, redundant and longer. Not the best writing, Swadhayayee.
4. You changed "A guru may also give a student instructions" to "The guru may also give the student instructions". This one was actually a close call. When I speak to a Hindu or someone with an understanding of the Guru, I invariably say "The Guru". But speaking to a broader audience, who is new to the concept of Guru, I usually say 'A Guru.'
5. You changed a reference so it couldn't be read.
I don't have the time to do this with every single edit that you make, Swadhyayee, so in future I won't explain each revert. If I believe that your edit improves the article, I won't revert it. You see, my only goal is to improve the article, and to keep the improvements that excellent editors like HeBhagavan are making.
I am assuming good faith with you Swadhyayee, because I know that you are sincere. I just think, as other editors do, that most of your editing changes are detrimental to the article, as I just pointed out above. Please don't take it personally. I know that you are a very fine person, just like HeBhagavan and others here who are trying to improve the article.
ॐ Priyanath 16:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait Priyanath, there is some problem or confusion with the software of edits. Few hours ago only, I have posed this problem on talk page of Hinduism. The edits which you are referring to as mine are not done by me. Whenever you pick up a particular edit from history, it shows previous edits in red ink, making one to believe that the edits have been done by the last person.

If there is any vandal, I might use pop-up and put to previous edit. In the process, because may change to becuase but as far as I remember, such thing has also not taken place.

Regarding "place and area", I have put my comments on either talk page of HeBhagawan or Hinduism. Pl. go through it.

I don't think, I have ever changed devotee bringing food, a Guru may also give..., I have not changed any ref.,

If, you are online, kindly immediately confirm and report the software fault as I do not know how to lodge the complaint.

Swadhyayee 17:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Priyanath,

Thank you for the barnstar!

[edit] The Builder Award

No community can grow without a certain amount of political infrastructure: policies, procedures, processes. Casual readers never see it; editors generally hate it; but it supports all we do. Like all major construction, it requires broad vision, attention to detail, and hard work. ~~~~}

Priyanath, as I am fond of lists, I will list the reasons you deserve this award:

  1. Your level-headed efforts to strike the delicate balance between making all editors feel valued on one hand and maintaining the coherence and quality of the articles on the other;
  2. Your sophisticated approach to substantive issues;
  3. Your good rhetorical and stylisitc choices in your edits; and
  4. Your valuable services in reminding the Hindu editors of the Hinduism page, when the debates have gotten heated, that ultimately Hinduism is not about what arguments or edits we make--it is about whether we practice our religion in the real world.

I don't know if you have any interested in the job, but I would be willing to nominate you for adminship (if I can figure out how--I've never nominated anybody).HeBhagawan 23:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Introduced 14:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC) by John Reid.


[edit] Your opionion

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

[edit] Your Userpage

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

[edit] Edits I did and not done.

Priyanath, Here is a summary of what I did and what not. As far as possible, I did not use pop-up but manually changed the text. I am also shocked to see this history. I tried to revert a vandal today and my pop-up did not respond three to four times at least two times today.

I do not know how it happened. Could be software problem? Could you pl. check and give your observations?

Edits being shown having been done by me at 1.50am, 1.51am & 1.55am of 4 Nov. 06.

I could have done.

1) the kind of birth they will get in the future (1.50am)

2) the kind of birth (body) (1.51am)

3) make provision of seperate place in house (1.55am)

I might have done earlier, not today morning.1) room, or part of a room, (1.50am)


I have not done.

1) observant (1.50am)

2) visiting the temple (1.50am)

3) The guru may also give the student (1.50am)

4) becasue (1.50am)

5) as much as possible (1.50am)

6) name="isbn1884852025-107"> (1.50am).

7) what kind of people they will become (1.55am)

Swadhyayee 17:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I hope you will keep checking discussion at Hinduism.

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

Swadhyayee 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your words of encouragment

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

[edit] Here is a couple

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

Here is Krishna celebrating Holi.
Here is Krishna celebrating Holi.
Here is a beautiful picture of Krishna and Radha.
Here is a beautiful picture of Krishna and Radha.
And I am sure you have heard of this tale.
And I am sure you have heard of this tale.

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
















[edit] Kriya_Yoga as a generic term

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

[edit] Good Job

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

[edit] Thanks I am back for the kindness of Shell Kinney.

Thanks I am back for the kindness of Shell Kinney.

swadhyayee 11:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you have time see today's discussion.

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

swadhyayee 14:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] caste

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

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

[edit] Paramahansa Yogananda

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

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

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

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

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

Did you check these before making your arbitrary decision.

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

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

[edit] Hi Priya

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

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

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

[edit] I understand

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

[edit] Not to beat a dead horse, but

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

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

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

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

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

Today it is often debated whether the caste system is an integral part of the Hindu religion sanctioned by the scriptures or or is simply an outdated social custom.[2][3] Although the scriptures contain some passages that can be interpreted to sanction the caste system, they also contain indications that the caste system is not an essential part of the Hindu religion, and both sides in the debate are able to find scriptural support for their views.[4]

Many social reformers, including Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), have criticized the problems caused by caste discrimination.[5] The saint and religious teacher Sri Ramakrishna (1836-1886) taught that

lovers of God do not belong to any caste . . . . A brahmin without this love is no longer a brahmin. And a pariah with the love of God is no longer a pariah. Through bhakti (devotion to God) an untouchable becomes pure and elevated.[6]

Although caste distinctions carry less weight in India than they used to, they have not disappeared completely.[7] In 1947 the government of India abolished caste by law, and more recent laws have attempted to remedy lingering problems related to caste.[8][9]


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

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

HeBhagawan, I wasn't attached to my version - I'm more keen on the idea that having a long section on caste makes it seem like an overly important part of Hinduism. I think what's in the article is just fine, it's NPOV, and your shorter version above is even better. With all the arguing about it, just having a vote so people could actually say what they were for (rather than always being against) was helpful, and we now have a record of people agreeing on something.
With article length, I agree with you to a point. Even though there's no space limitation, an article can get so long that people won't read it all. I bet you're more inclined to read a short, concise, well-written argument in a discussion here - compared to a long, rambling argument. That's where I'm coming from with the shorter is better plea. But the article is definitely improving with all the work you and others have put into it, so all is for the good.
I'll continue to pitch in as I can, but there are times when I can't be very involved. ॐ Priyanath 05:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Just a few random thoughts on my editing philosophy:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Talk:Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/i/User_talk%7EPriyanath_archive2_0aaf.html"