User talk:Bodhiupasaka

January 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Tripiṭaka, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, if my edits seemed unconstructive. I mostly changed Tripitaka(Sanskrit) to Tipitaka(Pali). And also changed some Sanskrit terms to Pali terms. The reasoning is as follows: Buddha was against the use of metrical languages such as Sanskrit.(Cullavagga, Tipitaka). The first Tipitaka was created by the Theravada sect of Buddhism which used Pali and therefore referred it to it's Pali name(Tipitaka). I believe Buddhist terms and the names of Buddhist scriptures should be in Pali, not Sanskrit, since the Buddha was against the use of such languages and moreover the Pali Canon(Tipitaka) precedes the Mahayana Tripitaka by at least 200 years. It is also considered to be the most complete and most accurate among Buddhist scriptural collections. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The title of the article is Tripitaka which defines the topic: all Tripitakas, those of the Nikayas, the Pali Canon, the Taisho Tripitaka, Tripitaka Koreana etc.). The title implies that there exists a WP:consensus that Tripitaka is the common term for the topic (see Article titles. Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view policy (WP:NPOV). In the article Pāli Canon, Theravada or Pali suttas Pali terms are used. I hope this explanation is helpful, you can start a discussion on the talk page of Tripitaka if you think the article should be renamed. JimRenge (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. So it's because of consensus ? Why not rename it as Tipitaka, given the fact that Buddha was against the use of metrical languages for writing down his teachings(Cullavagga Tipitaka) ? Anyway there's not much I can do about it, if there is already a consensus on the term that should be used. Thank you for your time. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia community does not prefer or follow a specific religion. Wikipedia is a project to build a general encyclopedia,in contrast to the Catholic Encyclopedia (example). JimRenge (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that 'most' of the wikipedia community do not 'prefer' a particular religion. Having said that, there are people from both sides of the political spectrum and those 'professing' various Faiths who try to edit every page to reflect their own agenda. And these spurious edits lead to vandalism, which in turn leads to many pages being locked to protect them from vandalism. Am I wrong ? I made it clear that I do not contest the revertion you have made on the article in question. I have given my reasons for the edits, that Buddha was against the use of metrical languages such as Sanskrit for writing down his teachings among other things and even gave scriptural reference to that. The funny thing is even in Mahayana texts, it is stated that Buddha was against the use of sanskrit. And the Mahayanas ironically use Sanskrit terms!! It would be odd if Islamic terms were written in Hebrew, or Jewish terms were written in Arabic or Brahmanical terms were written in Chinese. Don't you think ? Having said all that, I am not going to contest the revertion, since it seems you were only doing your job, and the larger wikipedia community seemed to have already agreed on the language that Buddha himself was against in representing Buddhist terms which seems unfortunate. Good day to you sir. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your notice on the page regarding "Dashavataras" of Vishnu. It is stated that the 9th avatar of Vishnu is Gotama Buddha. This is false. It is Sugata Buddha. The wikipedia page for Sugata Buddha says it is just an "epithet" for Gotama Buddha. This is simply wrong. For starters, Gotama Buddha was born in Lumbini, Nepal while Sugata Buddha was born in Bodh Gaya. They do not even share the same parents. Puranas is proof of that. I hope someone will be able to rectify the mistakes in the wikipedia pages "Dashavataras" and "Sugata". Bodhiupasaka (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Sugata, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  13:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dashavatara. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  13:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Were my edits wrong factually ? Can you please give Scriptural reference that proves Gotama Buddha, the founder of BUDDHISM is mentioned in Hindu scriptures instead of Sugata Buddha ? And let's not forget, that the two Buddhas do not even share the same birth place nor the same parents.
 * So how can Gotama Buddha be the avatar of Vishnu ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Pāli Canon, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  11:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to this article:https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23839/why-did-buddha-praise-the-vedic-agnihotra-as-the-foremost-sacrifice Bodhiupasaka (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Gotitbro (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

What part of my edits are disruptive ? Is this a threat ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Please explain how Pali descended from Sanskrit. Which Sanskrit exactly ? Is is Vedic which is also called Chandas in Panini's book, Ashtadyayi or is it classical Sanskrit which was a language spoken by elites. And why does an image venerating Lord Vishnu, that too written in classical Sanskrit language have to do with Pali language which is the language that this article covers. Who is being disruptive here ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Burmese script(not written by me) and Sinhala script(written by me) transcription of Pali even though it is a historical fact that Pali was first written in those scripts ? Rather than pointing out any historical or factual 'mistakes' I have supposedly committed , You threaten me with blocking me from editing ? Is this behavior acceptable in wikipedia ? I believe you might have breached the code of conduct by threatening other editors. You are giving the wrong image that wikipedia is not egalitarian. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Why not remove the Devanagari transcription of Sanskrit in the wikipedia article of Sanskrit ? Why only remove the transcriptions of Pali ? Is it bias or you selectively allow some people to keep their 'disruptive' edits ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For Pali, only the Latin script is universally accepted you are being clearly disruptive and vandalizing articles by adding and POVPUSHing Sinhala scripts to articles. Devanagari is universally accepted as the standard script for Sanskrit. You have also vandalized pages by removing any mention of clear Sanskrit origins/words from different articles. Gotitbro (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are adding your own ORIGINALRESEARCH and disrupting long-standing stable articles. Go through and read the WP:RS, WP:EDITWARRING and WP:POVPUSH policies before continuing further. And stop your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, you have already been notified/warned by multiple editors if you continue with your disruptive behavior you are looking at blocks. Gotitbro (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

So your saying that Pali was written in Latin Script on Sri Lanka and Myanmar because it was 'universally accepted' ? And are you sure Devanagari was the only script used in writing Sanskrit. Ever heard of Dravidian scripts such as Tamil and Kannada ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Let us not forget that the very name 'Pali' is of Burmese origin as ironically stated im the wikipedia article itself. It is inferred that Pali was hence first written in Burmese script. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, which 'sanskrit was written in Devanagari ? Was it classical or vedic ? Vedic language was first written in Brahmi script, not Devanagari. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

And if Latin is indeed the universally accepted script for Pali, then why did you allow the Pali term for Sangha be transliterated in devanagari in the corresponding article ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not addressing historical or regional scripts here but contemporary standard ones. You have still not read the WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:POVPUSH policies, go ahead and do that first. You clearly have no idea about either language families or etymologies; Pali is a Sanskritized Dravidian word, Sangha is Sanskrit as well. Do not add your uncited/poorly cited original research to articles. Gotitbro (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sangha is not a Sanskrit term. It is Prakrit.Samgha is the Sanskrit term. Pali is not even a Dravidian word ,genius. It is a Burmese word. It is cited in the article itself. You not only know nothing about the linguistic history of Pali. You also harbour several delusions about it. There is no point throwing wikipedia rules at me. You already proved your own ignorance. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

August 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Duḥkha, you may be blocked from editing. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Rather than threatening the users for making sensible edits, I suggest you read the reason I gave for making that edit. I make one small edit and that's somehow disruptive ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Please state one piece of historical Pali literature that used the Devanagari script. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll make the change again, and instead of threatening users, try to discuss it in the talk section of that article. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

November 2022
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Shakya, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Take the time to read the citations rather than accusing another editor's edits of being unconstructive. If they are unconstructive. Please do mention how so. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I checked Thapar. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shakya. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Reliable sources
Hi - I just reverted your addition of a source at Saraswati. Put simply, wisdomlib.org is not a reliable source for any assertion, and should not be used a a reference in any article. Please take a look at our guidance on identifying reliable sources. Wisdomlib.com is one person's personal website - here is its 'About' page, which makes that clear. This is covered at WP:SPS. Now, if the author were a professor of comparative religion at an established and well-regarded university, one could make the argument that he is an expert of the type discussed in that guidance, but he isn't. Just don't use it as a source - there must be published books, written by academics, that discuss this stuff - use one of them. Girth Summit  (blether) 18:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * That "source" is already used in the body of the article long before I've included it in the infobox. Please take your time in reading the whole article instead of reverting the edits by claiming said source is a "blog". Bodhiupasaka (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And the origin of that source is already mentioned in the reference itself. It is published as a book by an actual scholar, "Vettam Mani". Feel free to google that person. Like I said before, please take your time in reading the article(and its sources). I still have no idea how you came to the conclusion that it was a blog. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi - look, we have perhaps gotten off on the wrong foot here. I know what I'm doing here - I'm a site administrator - I don't need you to explain to me how this project works. The 'wisdomlib.com' site is one person's personal project, it is not a reliable source for any assertion - if it's already used on that page, that is a problem that needs to be fixed, rather than something we should be emulating elsewhere. If wisdomlib.com is itself citing a reliable source, that's great - sometimes unreliable sources are themselves based on reliable sources. In that case, verify the reliable source yourself, and then use that to support the assertions you want to add. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Perhaps having gotten off the wrong foot is indeed the case. I've updated the Talk page with my response for said article. Please do have a look. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll have a proper look tomorrow.if we can access the reliable sources that website is using, that would be a huge improvement on the article. The tag ought to stay on the page until that work is done through. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  20:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Please stop adding information to infoboxes which is not present in the article. Infoboxes are summaries, they should not contain anything which is not covered in more detail in the article body. First, add a few sentences to the article describing the facts at more length with citation. Then, and only then, can you add it to the infobox, which is supposed to be done without citations (and yes, many people do it wrong and add citations to the infobox which have not yet been removed, but that doesn't mean that new material and citations should be allowed to be added there). Skyerise (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * "Please stop adding information to infoboxes which is not present in the article."
 * You might want to read that article then. And refer the talk section as well. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your edits in "Women in Hinduism
Hello, I do see that you have some confusions. I am going to clear confusions. 1st verse, I would like to only apologize for the mistake of thinking thay this verse is said by Pururavas when it's instead said by Urvashi. Now coming to the point, you have to realize thay this play is infact a tragic play. Tragic and negative quotes will inadvertently be present in such contexts. Taking these standalone verses out of context is therefore quite wrong. Urvashi here is the wife of Pururavas and she had married him on certain conditions which must not be broken. The conditions were sadly broken, and now thay Urvashi is leaving, an angry Pururavas threatens her with his suicide. It's in this sad context that she advises him to not kill himself. Now, coming to your question that whether the Vedas' authors put thee words into her mouth. 1st the way you framed your question is quite rude for me and it shows that you're probably an immature person. Coming to point, yes indeed we don't know whether the authors of the vedas "put these words into her mouth". This story is not philosophical or prescriptive, but rather description of a legendary story, which might have pre-Vedic origin,and afterwards was sanskritized incorporated into the Vedas. So, your POV of the vedic authors apparently "pushing these words into her mouth" is POV pushing. Now coming to another point. Both of these characters are not "religious" per se. Pururavas has been explicitly described as a mortal king of the Lunar dynasty and Urvashi is an Apsara, who although are celestial deities, are not of a "sacred" status and especially not of a status which is accorded to rishis (sages) or Devas who are actually religious figures. Both of these characters are at the day's end, normal people or at the very least, not of a religiously important position. Hence their verses can't be taken to be repsentatives of the Hindu religion. If you are to take these verses as holding a religious position, you might as well go to a random Hindu hy the roadside and ask his views about Hindu women and include them here. But that still doesn't make it a "Hindu religious" position. This is the reason why Urvashi's opinion are rather her own POV, rather than being a "Hindu religious" one.(Source: https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/45258/what-is-the-proper-translation-of-rig-veda-10-95-15.). As to why I wrote that this verse was "mistranslated", here is another translation by Dr. Tulsi Ram: "Pururava, let this never be: do not die, never fall, never must cursed wolves devour you, such are not the loves and friendships of women. It is only women of wolfish heart that deceive and betray the covenant." You see, the dynamic entirely changes with this translation. Here, the statement is not a "blanket generalization" of all women but rather of only those women who have a "wolfish heart". This is why I said that the verse was mistranslated. (Source: https://vedicscriptures.in/rigveda/10/95/15)

Now coming to the 2nd verse (Indra verse). 1st, lets go by the given translation itself. The mind of a Woman here only refers to this Asanga who became a female. So, Indra is saying Asanga’s mind is not discipline and her intellect is very small, here it refers to only that Asanga who became a woman, not all women. This clarification was given by H.H. Wilson, an Orientalist who was a Sanskrit proefessor at the Oxford University. Asanga had been made into a woman by rishis, and its in her direction that this verse is pointed too. He has a wiki page too and his entire works and translations of the Rig Veda are easily available on the internet (and on his wiki page too). Now, let's go to alternate translations. The word raghum (रघुम्) in the original sanskrit verse has multiple meanings. Pandit Harisharan Siddhantalankar translates the word as "Kriyatmak" in Hindi, which means active. The word has many meanings like "quick","light" etc, and all of its meaning can be taken and given their own context in this verse, due to which this confusion has arisen in the 1st place. You can easily search up the meaning of this word on Google itself. Using different translations, the verse can be made to say that a woman's intellect has "less weight" or a woman's intellect is a "quick witted" one. These are just 2 of the large variety of this particular word's meaning. The translations of Siddhantalankar are easily available on the internet too. I request you to Google those sources up as they're easily available. (Source of this particular info: https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/44739/what-is-the-correct-translation-of-rig-veda-book-8-hymn-33-verse-17) (Source of H.H. Wilson: Page 45, https://archive.org/details/rigvedasanhitc05wils/page/45/mode/1up?q=Intellect). Here, 1 more translation of the verse: "Indra has declared that the mind of the women cannot be restrained.He also declared that her will-power is swift." (Source:(Source: Ṛg Vēda Saṃhitā, Maṇḍala 8, 33rd Sūktam, page 252 by Dr RL Kashyap). Here, "her" means Asanga. This is the confusion regarding this verse. That particular word can be translated into a myriad of translations and all of them would be correct, but they'd entirely change the context and meaning of the verse. There's no reason behind presenting 1 version of the verse, while rejecting the others. As I've shown here, there are multiple translations of the word. You selecting 1 of the translations while ignoring the others, when all of the can be considered equally accurate (or equally inaccurate for the matter) will be taken as POV pushing. However as Dr. R.L. Kashyap explains, that the latter verse appears to be the more accurate one as the word "raghum" has been used in this sense only in other compound words with it being a part of those compound words. He also states that this confusion arises since the word "raghum" is often confused by authors with the word "laghum", which is the word which actually means "small". (Source: Ṛg Vēda Saṃhitā, Maṇḍala 8, 33rd Sūktam, page 252 by Dr RL Kashyap). Dr. Kashyap has a Wiki page too. You can go and pay it a visit if you want. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangasami_L._Kashyap).

Now 3rd point, i personally only saw 1 other quote which speaks positively of women sourced from the same author (right above your quotes). However, that quote has another reference to an author and his work is from 2004. This is the reason why i didn't remove it. However, I will delete the reference of this author (Ralph Griffith). Apologies since i couldn't find any other quotes from this author. If there are quotes which speak positively of Hindu women and have seen soruced from the same author, and the reference is a standalone one without other references, I'll definitely delete them. I request you to do the same, or notify me and I'll do the needful.

Conclusion: i do see that you might have an agenda against Hinduism. Again, I'm not alleging that you do have one since i have no reliable proof to prove this allegation agsinst you and this itself might be POV pushing on my part(which i want to avoid). However, if you DO HAVE an agenda against Hinduism, I pray that you leave it and stop taking verses either out of context, or using particular translations of verses which fit your possible existent agenda, when there are multiple translations available, each having their own contexts. Please stop spreading Hinduphobia like this. I wish you love and peace. Thanks. I've already given you the reason behind my removing these verse in this private talk space itself through this message and hence I'm not adding the reason in my Wiki edit of the page. Let's keep the Wiki edit page civilized and if you want to add these verses, you can have a debate with me and i can clear other possible confusions which you might have. PS: Pardon in advance for any grammatical or spelling error in this message. Kailash K Singh (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Accusing me of Hinduphobia etc or having an "agenda" against Hinduism just because of including (verified) unpalatable verses from Hindu Scriptures that go against your own POV is not going to stop others from doing the same. The very fact that you only removed the verses from an author only because they spoke unfavorably of women while keeping the translations from the same author that spoke favorably of them already shows your bias. You thinking that your scriptures only speak favorably of Women, therein lies the issue. The article as it stands is simply too biased as was noted by other editors in the talk section years ago(including me). The fact you're removing actual Wiki resources as references show your position is unsubstantiated. Your "clarification" about Urvashi is spurious as well, you fail to account for the cultural milieu that the character inhabits, the intention of the author, and the fact that she that she refers not just to herself but to Women in general. Sames goes for "Asanga", Indra's statement implies that Asanga's mind does not brook discipline or can't be restrained precisely because she is a woman. The statement does not mention "The Woman", as in a particular person but "Woman" as in general. Hurling accusations against me will not make up for your poor comprehension skills. And thanks for pointing out that your favorite author , Dr. RL Kashyap has a Wiki article, because it is clear from reading the Wiki article on him, that he was no expert in either Vedic Sanskrit nor in Hinduism. His field of expertise lies completely outside the realm of theology.
 * And feel free to explain away about how Women are considered to be inferior birth.
 * https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/9/32/#:~:text=O%20son%20of%20P%E1%B9%9Bth%C4%81%2C%20those%20who%20take%20shelter%20in%20Me%2C%20though%20they%20be%20of%20lower%20birth%20%E2%80%93%20women%2C%20vai%C5%9Byas%20%5Bmerchants%5D%20and%20%C5%9B%C5%ABdras%20%5Bworkers%5D%20%E2%80%93%20can%20attain%20the%20supreme%20destination.
 * Or the modern day Hindu practices that mistreat women.
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8409632/
 * and there are multiple instances of women being denigrated by Hindu beliefs and customs, both in practice and in scripture.
 * If you keep up on introducing unconstructive edits(as is mentioned by another Editor in your talk page) because it does not satisfy your POV, you will end up getting banned in the long run. I only had some time to fix the article's bias yesterday. I will not stop nor will other editors stop when it comes to fixing the bias in any article when the time permits them. Good luck having an edit war with multiple editors when they are also trying to fix the article and any other article that has overt POV pushing. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the reply: Kailash K Singh (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Kailash K Singh (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Part 1 of the reply: Kailash K Singh (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
Your recent editing history at Shakya shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  16:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)