User talk:GourangaUK/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 American 2 Thank you for the compliment! 3 Gouranga 4 Blockquote 5 Re: Jagannath Temple (Puri) photo 6 Censorship 7 Krishna dates 8 artificial reincarnation 9 Raja Yoga 10 Not everyone ritvik is part of IRM 11 Vedanta 12 Thank you! 13 For your work 14 Help 15 Reincarnation 16 About the picture 17 Karma 18 Kama & Artha are lower Purusharths is a wrong statement. 19 Your edits to Hinduism 20 Krishna Image 21 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam 22 Tulsi Devi Picture 23 ISKCON and Vaishnavism 24 Vishnu statistics 25 Voting for Tirupathy as a colloboration 26 Narada 27 Schools of Philosophy

[edit] American

I noticed that you recently added a link to American here. American is a disambiguation page as the phrase has many uses including a person from the Americas or the United States. In the future, could you link the term to one of the articles listed on the American disambiguation term, that would be great. As an example, if you're linking to something related to the United States, you would input [[United States|American]]. Thanks! --Bobblehead 07:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bobblehead - I will try to remember that in future, as I don't always check if it's linking to a disambiguation page or not. Makes sense to send them straight to the appropriate link. Your advice is appreciated. Regards, GourangaUK 08:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the compliment!

I never know whether I am doing more harm than good when so many other people have worked on the page. So thanks! Mattisse(talk) 15:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gouranga

not at all; you know, I am used to taking quite some abuse from involvement with India related topics, and from our initial friction (which was just that, we were both unnecessarily defensive based on earlier experience) I have recognized you as an intelligent and good faith editor. dab (ᛏ) 13:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blockquote

Just to let you know, the WP:MoS states that blockquotes need neither quote marks nor italicization. I prefer to leave both off. —999 (Talk) 15:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I didn't realise that neither were needed on large quotations. Regards, GourangaUK 15:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Jagannath Temple (Puri) photo

The information on the photo just says "Jagannath Temple in the countryside in Orissa". Looking at the article just now (which I realize I need to work on more), I think, perhaps the photo comes from a more rural temple. If you have actually been there, your judgment about this would be better than mine. If you have a photo you took of that actual temple, then that might be better. What do you think? Mattisse(talk) 14:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I came across that second Jagannath photo at the Commons accidently yesterday after searching and searching the day before and finding only the one I stuck in the first time. It would be great to have some temple details. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 10:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Jagannath inspired Synchronicity at work, I like it. :-) GourangaUK 11:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

Would you explain why you continue to remove links such as (but not limited to) www.iskconirm.com ? It is a valid external linkproiding further reading/ alternate information. Please refrain from censoring/removing content, as this is considered vandalism. Sfacets 18:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it strange that you say this. The links are obviously being inserted as means of self-promotion for a minority group, alongside with a number of edits which I'd clearly class as vandalism. For example inserting POV statements in bold text within the article, and posting links at the top of the external links list, above many other more relevant ones. It's hardly censorship to remove the bad faith edits, or to move the links to more appropriate places? Regards, GourangaUK 08:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna dates

The exact date is 23rd January 3102 BC in the proleptic gregorian calender. The date of 18th February is in proleptic Julian Calender. There are people who prefer Julian versions, so i wont object if you want to revert my changes, but I prefer the Gregorian versions. Do remember to specify the calender used, if you revert my changes. Thanks. nids(♂) 08:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is not a tough calculation as we know that Kaliyuga started with his death. We are in the 5107th year of Kaliyuga. right!. So, I can say that i do know about the particular date for Krishna's departure. (i.e. if he is not just a mythological hero) :)nids(♂) 08:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] artificial reincarnation

Please explain your rv of my section "artificial reincarnation". Wowulu 19:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason I reverted the section was that it explained a theoretical method of forgetting memory, which is very different from the definition of reincarnation. As you feel differently maybe we could discuss with others in the comments page for the article to see if an agreement of opinion could be reached? GourangaUK 15:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raja Yoga

Hi Gouranga,

I am trying to change the Raja Yoga description under Bhagvad Geeta to read as "origin of the nose" instead of tip of the nose. I believe the word from Bhagvad Geeta is 'Nasikagram'. Which means the beginning of the nose (i.e. its origin) and incorrectly translated by many as the tip of the nose. The origin of the nose is the location of the Ajna chakra (third eye). I have developed this understanding from the following extract from Autobiography of a Yogi - Paramhamsa Yogaananda chapter 16

"Fix one's vision on the end of the nose." This inaccurate interpretation of a Bhagavad Gita stanza,7 widely accepted by Eastern pundits and Western translators, used to arouse Master's droll criticism.

"The path of a yogi is singular enough as it is," he remarked. "Why counsel him that he must also make himself cross-eyed? The true meaning of nasikagram is 'origin of the nose, not 'end of the nose.' The nose begins at the point between the two eyebrows, the seat of spiritual vision."

I believe it would be a great error to mis-translate a text of such immense stature. Many people will be misled by an incorrect translation and would be led astray on their quest. I too had followed the translation most popularly made, which requires the concentration on the tip of the nose. But under my Guru's guidance I learnt that the attention should be fixed at the Ajna chakra (the seat of Soul Wisdom) or the third eye. If you are averse to changing the translation, in the interest of allowing all views to be expressed, we should mutually agree to post it as an alternate translation in parenthesis alongside the original.

Thanks, Regards, Amit (Gyanesh75)

See Talk:Bhagavad_Gita#Raj_Yoga, Ys GourangaUK 08:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not everyone ritvik is part of IRM

Hare Krishna,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

You removed the link to my little forum where I encourage all to discuss Lord Krishna and Srila Prabhupada and leave politics behind. You told me my link would be best suited on the IRM page.

I am not a part of the IRM nor do they (or myself) wish me to be. Do not lump all ritviks in with such groups as the IRM among others who are just politics while forgetting the very important instruction of Prabhupada for us to "Always remember Krishna and never forget Him."

Please allow my link to stay on the page as you have allowed the Prominent Link and IRM links to remain.

your humble servant, Rukmini-Devi dasi

[edit] Vedanta

Oops sorry. I had intended to do that but instead have pasted the code on the article instead of talk page, in many related articles now. Hope you dont get mad at me seeing those pages.--Kris 09:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Cheers  ;-) GourangaUK 09:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Dear prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Hare Krishna!

Thank you for your help and consideration. This is much appreciated.

your humble servant, Rukmini-Devi dasi

[edit] For your work

In ISKCON related articles.

Enjoy. Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Gouranga, People keep on insisting that Hinduism's view of karma is not different from Buddhism. I say a central role for Hindus is believing that God has a role in karma. Please contribute here at God as Divine Accountant

Thanks for your help!

Raj2004 23:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks a lot, Gorounga

Raj2004 14:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time. I believe in God being the dispenser of the fruits of one's karma and as a mitigator. Mr. HeBhagawan seems to believe more as cause and effect theory. The Gita view seems to intermediate and correct view.

Raj2004 14:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have added your citations from the Gita in the Hinduism article. Please correct if I am incorrect. Raj2004 14:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bhagavad Gita does appear to promote both viewpoints as being parts of the same truth - as in: karma is simply a matter of action and reaction, but that Krishna can intervene personally if He so wishes. This is then referred to as 'akarma' because action on the spiritual platform has no material cause or effect. "One who sees inaction in action, and action in inaction, is intelligent among men, and he is in the transcendental position, although engaged in all sorts of activities." BG 4.18. Best Wishes, GourangaUK 17:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Gouranga, please comment here on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hinduism#Karma_section They're requesting your input. Thanks.

Raj2004 22:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reincarnation

Hi GourangaUK, glad I could be of help. I don't edit the wiki much anymore, because much of the pages I wanted to contribute to have generally been improved to the point that I don't feel the need to add anything more. The Reincarnation page, on the other hand, continues to be quite the challenge. There is so much material there that it has the potential to one day be a featured article, but unfortunately, as you say, tends to build up plenty of junk info. Oh well, the challenge is what keeps me coming back. MaxMangel 11:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the picture

Think of it as a "Hindu barnstar".Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karma

Hi, the article on Karma is in need of a great deal of help. If you have time, you you take a look at it, and if you are familiar with scholarly works add material distinguishing karma, akarma and vikarma. That it itself would be a very good start, and if there is more referenced material that you could add, it would be greatly appreciated. Hare Krishna! --BostonMA ^talk 21:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Gorounga, I created an article , Karma in Hinduism, to distinguish from Buddhism. Please add there if appropriate.

Thanks, Raj2004 22:42, 29 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"

Please forgive me, but I do not have any idea what this is refering to? I don't believe I've even made any edits to the Hinduism article? Ys, GourangaUK 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Hinduism

Hi Gouranga, Thank you for contributing to the discussion on the Hinduism page recently and for your edits to the article. 2 questions:

1. Regarding the edit about the markings: Is the additional marking of the tulsi leaf particular to the Hare Krishnas, or do you find it among other sects of Vaishnavism as well? I have never particularly noticed which Vaishnavas wear it and which don't.
2. Regarding maha-vakyas: Your quote from the Gita was beautiful. I wonder if we could move it to another place however. I'm not sure it fits in that particular place. The reason I say this is that (1)The quote is from the Gita, while all the others are from the Upanishads (read the preceding paragraph); (2)The citation does not refer to the quote as a maha-vaakya (it is certainly on the same level as the other quotes in its content, but I'm just talking about traditional classifications here); and (3) there are already quite a few mahaa-vaakyas listed there. I'm not sure we need any more, even if they are good quotes.

Do you mind if I delete it? Or move it to a different place? Hare Krishna, HeBhagawan 20:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about the markings and their relations to the various sampradayas. The "mahā-vākyas" has been traditionally used in a specific sense. The doesn't refer to just any great saying, but to several particular statements about Brahman in the Upanishads. Sometimes they are said to be only four, and sometimes 2 or 3 others are included, but they are all from the Upanishads (meaning the original Vedic Upanishads). One reference for this is Karl Werner, A Popular Dictionary of Hinduism at 101-02, although this is found in many other books as well. Of course, the teachings of the Gita are every bit as venerable as those of the Upanishads, but it seems like a good idea for the main Hinduism article to stick to the conventional categories.

Thanks for all your good work! I looked at some of the other work you did on other pages and it looks very good as well. HeBhagawan 13:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Krishnawithflute.jpg

I'm not so good at justifying images, perhaps you could have a look at this? The image is being put on a list for removal. Thanks - Hare Krishna Chopper Dave 18:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Good choice of replacement. I may zoom it in a little bit when I have the time. Thanks for looking into this matter :) Ys Chopper Dave 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam

List of converts to Hinduism is up for deletion in this Afd as well. There's al lot of hard work that would be lost, especially on our ISKCON brethren (I'm not personally part of ISKCON, but I respect Srila Prabhupada).Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article sounds somewhat dubious to me. To quote ISKCON's founder:

• "Prabhupada: We are not preaching to Christian or Hindu or Muslim. We are preaching to human being. We do not see, "Here is a Christian. Here is a Muslim. Here is a Hindu. Here is a white man. Here is a black man." No. Every living being, his duty is to understand God. This is our preaching. This is our preaching, that "You are living being. You are part and parcel of Krsna. This designation, that ‘You are Hindu,' ‘You are Muslim,' ‘You are Christian,' ‘You are this' -- these are all designations. Actually you are living being, part and parcel of Krsna. Therefore your main duty is to understand Krsna." This is our preaching. We are not going to convert Hindu into Muslim, Muslim into Christian. No, that is not our... That is not our business. He may think that he is Christian, he is Hindu, he is Muslim, but we think that he is a spirit soul, part and parcel of God."

From Always think of Krishna. Ys, GourangaUK 08:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tulsi Devi Picture

Any chance I can get a high resolution version of the picture you uploaded for use on Tulsi? It's very beautiful. Perhaps we can talk on an IM messenger? What do you use? Would be handy for in the future also.

Thank you, Ys Chopper Dave 03:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISKCON and Vaishnavism

I first marked as NPOV and found no one in the talk page, so moved the page. Sorry about that. But, I found majority of the content as ISKCON related (including all the images), while majority of the other Vaishnavas (including Iyengars) are non-ISKCONites. I was working on topics including Tamilnadu temples, divya desams, Andal and Alvars and many of these content were not found to be related with the Prabhupadha stuff. Thus, I found the need for adding a Vaishnavism dissambiguation page.

Balajiviswanathan 18:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vishnu statistics

Statistics regarding God worship is bullshit. In Hinduism multiple Gods are worshipped and they dont say how did they collect the massive statistics from the world and alteast no one asked me which God I worship. I worship Vishnu, Ganesh, Shiva.... and in which am I counted?

Kindly dont draw any sweeping assertion from that questionable report or else we have to mark the article non-NPOV.

Balajiviswanathan 20:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was surprized that you took offense of the statement and mentioned it as an abusive language. If I intended it as an abuse why would I use "kindly" in it :). Anyway, no hard-feelings if u thought "bullshit" was an offense. Regarding the statistics, I still raise an objection and I'm not against using the statistic in the article, but kindly make sure you put it in a way that the statistics is not taken as some official word, but a assertion that some people believe. That's why I edited it previously and you reverted it. Balajiviswanathan 21:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you take 'kindly' in a sarcastic way :). I use Kindly as per the following dictionary:

kind·ly (kndl) adj. kind·li·er, kind·li·est 1. Of a sympathetic, helpful, or benevolent nature: a kindly interest; a gentle, kindly soul. See Synonyms at kind1. 2. Agreeable; pleasant: a kindly breeze.

Another question about the two statistic pages (they both use a common data) is why are Lingayats considered as a separate religious grouping and not under Shaivas. If their questionable assertion is true, we would have to deal with the thousands of splinter groups, each having their own leader, type of worship and allegiance to a particular text. Another major question about the statistic is somehow, the Shiva + Vishnu worshippers make up 80% of India, while a lot of states have predominant worshipper of other forms: Marriamman+Aiyyanar forms predominant in Tamilnadu, Kali+Durga predominant in Bengal, Ayyappan+Bhagavathy predominant in Kerala and a lot of Indian interior worshipping a variety of other native gods. And still a huge percentage have no idea whatsover of all these. I wont be surprized if the actual data shows only 150 million Vishnu worshippers, 100 million shiva worshippers, 100 million other mainstream Hindu god worhisppers (Karthikeya, Ganesh, Durga, Shakti, Ayyappan) and rest worhsipping a variety of native gods. Balajiviswanathan 22:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting for Tirupathy as a colloboration

Hi, can you join me in nominating Tirupathy Venkateshwara Temple for the colloboration of the week. It is a shame that such an important article is still not near the FA-category.

[here] Balajiviswanathan 07:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narada

By the way, FYI, Narada is not an alternate name of Shakyamuni, but is the name of a completely different person, an earlier buddha who is mentioned briefly in Buddhist scripture. I made the appropriate correction to Narada.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schools of Philosophy

Dear Maurice - are you working on this page as a complete list of all world philosophies, both secular and religious? Or does it have some boundaries such as Eastern/Western etc... ? Regards, GourangaUK 14:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear GourangaUK - The answer is yes. Because wikipedia is a global enciclopedia I think we owe it a global point of view, so I was thinking to a list of ALL world philosophies, both secular and religious, visualized in a a timetable that will give an idea of the advancement of world philosophy itself during time. Thanks if advance for any kind of contributions in thi sense. Regards. Maurice Carbonaro 07:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)