User talk:Yogacharya

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ism schism (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory sentence in Hinduism Article[edit]

Following sentence id defamatory and malicious in nature. "Historically, Hinduism in the wider sense includes Brahmanism, religions that evolved from or are based on Vedism in ancient India; in a narrower sense, it encompasses the post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions of India.[4] Among its roots is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India.[5]"

This sentence does not make logical sense either. First there is no such thing a Brahmanism, Word Brahmanism is a slur used by Christian evangelists for Hinduism because they try to project Hinduism as a religion of Brahmins and not the rest of the Hindu society. Similarly Vedism is also an invented word and does not make sense. Second sentense "post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions " is even more ridiculous, since it implies that there was change in cultural traditions in india after the buddhism. I recommend removing the whole sentence as it is based on invented words like Brahmanism and Vedism with malicious intent. Some users had provided a reference to Brittanica to justify the inclusion. On investigation I found that there is no such thing in britannica.

Dear Yugacharya, I agree that your remark for yourself above is somewhat illogical on the Hinduism article. Brahmanism and Vedism are terms used, but they should be avoided as much as possible, since as you mention they were invented with malicious intent. If you have clear evidence that they are not used in Britannica - let us know, in any case we should arrive at acceptable wording. - Of course this discussion should take place at Talk:Hinduism, not to oneself on ones own talkpage... I guess the key is to provide reliable academic sources to argue this case and to prove "that there is no such thing in britannica." I do not have access to it in its current form. Wikidās ॐ 10:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the contributor of the "malicious" sentence, and don't like it. Of course, it's better to remove it.

Yogacharya (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ishta-deva vs. yidam[edit]

Greetings. I see you've a lot of experience with Vajrayana topics. There is a discussion underway about moving "Ishta-deva (Buddhism) to "yidam"--if you'd care to review the arguments pro and con on the talk page, your input would be appreciated.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]