User talk:Nat Krause/Archive2

Re CESNUR
Reading your inquiries re CESNUR on Andries's talk page, let me add my opinion on them (you said that you are interested in CESNUR because you want to make Aum Shinrikyo article neutral). To my knowledge, CESNUR doesn't position itselves as expert on Aum more than on other NRMs. At CESNUR's page you find his review of Littman's book and collection of newspaper articles, that's basically all. Introvigne once (couple of years ago) was interviewed by BBC and said that "Aum does not pose a threat". I don't remember reading anything by Introvigne or his students on this topic apart of that.

As to CESNUR itself, CESNUR is not some association of cult apologists, though anti-cult movement seems to pay much attention to it. Please take into consideration the fact that while anti-cult groups maintain websites, actively post in usenet etc., scholars usually tend to make their research available to other scholars and do not pay much attention to internet advertisements of their works. In other words, scholars publish their works in scientific magazines and usually don't counter-attack websites accusing them in pro-cult bias. The do not maintain counter-anti-cult websites to "expose" the anti-cult activists as well, so in order to get scholarly points of view you will need to extract references to these scholars from works published on CESNUR's page and try to google them to see if anything is available on the Web. Works that are copyrighted will not be available.

Pali Canon in Japanese
Dear NatKrause, thank you for your input to Aum Shinrikyo article. I ventured to add more to its 'doctrine' section today, please review the changes when you have time. By the way, could you give me some more info on Pali Canon translation to Japanese? This is important as I thought that Aum is strangely the only group in the world that translated the full Pali Canon and you said that it was already translated into Japanese. If this is true, Aum would not be the first, but then Japanese is the only language into which the full Canon was ever translated from original Pali, so I am interested to check this. If this is indeed true, we could add to the Buddhism section, as this is a very interesting fact.

normativity
Yeah, I tend to avoid normativity in general. :P Seriously tho, I have to stop editing controvercial articles or I'm gonna get chased off the wiki. Every troll, wingnut and crackpot on the wiki gravitates to them naturally, and thats not the worst. The worst thing is a normally good editor who loses their NPOV over some issue or topic, or assumes bad faith in another editor due to their presumed POV, or otherwise malfunctions in regards to a particular topic. I have noticed which parts of editing here I enjoy, and which parts I hate. I like creating new pages, and editing obscure ones. I am beginning to think that w so many pages, I should just abandon any page that becomes unfriendly. I am tired of unfriendliness. Prob is, that is a cycle on the wiki. Somehow the meta-issue of trolls/majority POV chasing off those who differ from them must be solved if we are to ever be a reliable reference. I do ramble on, don't I? :) Sam [Spade] 10:37, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Zen

 * (Dear Mandel: Sorry, I have to revert this. I'm not sure what the distinction making is, but "contemplative" sounds incorrect. And we might as well point out that "Zen" is a Japanese word.)

No problem. I thought having two Zens redundant because it is mentioned as the first word. Hence the delete.

As for the latter ("contemplative"), maybe I have to check it out.

If for the good of the article, I don't see why you can't revert my change. Esp when I may be wrong. :-) Mandel May 15, 2004

Nat at his best (smiley removed so as not to offend)
My favourite Nat Krause quote at the moment: "Robert of Ketton translated the Quran, but that didn't make him a Christian."

Well - it is my favourite because it made me laugh for a few minutes. As to 'best' - yes. probably meant in an ironic manner All the best to you (20040302 07:00, 24 May 2004 (UTC))

Anarchism
I think arguing that Rand wasn't an anarcho-capitalist is a tough sell, regardless of what she claimed on the matter. (It's hardly the only suspect claim of hers). Regardless, I think both Libertarians and Rand show the importance of anarcho-capitalist philosophy. I'm not averse to explanation, or even expansion, of the discussion on types of anarchist thought, and of the conflicts and arguments over what "real" anarchism is, as I've said. I'm opposed to the article taking a point of view on that debate. Snowspinner 06:57, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Religion in India
Hey man... heh heh... I answered in the affirmative to the U.S. question, that I'd support it, holding a condition for the (unlikely) possibility it fights against India. :) But I don't think president's coming any time soon.

As for the Religion of India page, it sucks, and completely unsubstantiated bullcrap about Hindu fundamentalists wiping out Buddhists and their 'fleeing' India need to be taken care of. In general, you're right, it's sparse and does no justice whatsoever to the spiritual kaleidoscope that is India, possibly the most religiously diverse country in the world. I'll work on it over this week or so. Gotta think of a plan. Shanti Out... no, that doesn't work... peace out. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:08, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

snarkiest
Well, I don't really agree w your characterization, but I can't say it isn't true. I go way out of my way not to edit war (not that anybody notices) and as far as "leftist forces"... My experience here on the wiki has done a pretty good job of shaking the gears out of what I think left and right are sposed to mean. For the record, I like the test here, which says I'm a Leftist (and modest authoritarian) myself. If wiki articles tended to say gays should get an arse kicking and anarchists are all sociopathic maniacs, I'd prob get criticized for my opposition to "rightist forces". I like to think my bias here is pro-NPOV, and anti-B.S. ;). And as far as Kev, when anybody starts muttering about cabals and conspiracies, I tend to roll my eyes. Not mention that he is very difficult to wrangle sense out of, and has a habit of hurling ad hominem's (troll) my way. Drop a note anytime you’re in the mood to conspire, Sam [Spade] 04:23, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Me, of course :-)
I originally used the name as a semi-troll account on Kuro5hin, but I kind of grew into it and it sort of stuck. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anarcho-wikipediaism
Superb work over at anarcho-fascism. I would go so far as to say that while you glanced over the facts/history/philosophy of the article, you definately grasped the essence. Kev 08:48, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Three schools of Buddhism
Thanks, it is much better. Engrish isn't my strong point. :) FWBOarticle


 * No problem. - Nat Krause 17:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

short "i"
Nat, hi,

The trouble with pinyin, or one trouble with pinyin, is that they have used some letters for multiple purposes. Zhi, chi, shi, ri all end in "i". But it isn't the "i" in "bi3 jiao3". Unfortunately Japanese people in Taiwan didn't understand that. It took me learning pinyin to figure out why they always called themselves "reee ben ren." I think of the "i" in the retroflex series as a kind of "vowel r." At least that's what I say to students, which seems to satisfy them. I also say that I would have liked it better if they had spelled them "zhr, chr, shr, r," and if they thought they just had to have a vowel they could have dotted their Rs. I guess there is a bit of unintended humor in that. Never noticed it before.

Anyway, if you check my website, http://www.wfu.edu/~moran/Cathay_Cafe/IPA_NPA_4.htm, you will see that the NPA that the other teachers who communicate on the Kenyon listserv will let me get by with are a kind of backwards capital S for the retroflex series and sort of the top half of that symbol, something that looks like a candy cane.

By the way, the SIL software makes me pretty sure that I have the right symbol for the "ri" initial consonant. It doesn't involve any initial tongue contact (as "f" does in English), but it does involve very close proximity. That's why they call it an "approximant" I guess. It's like the "f" used in Japanese where the tongue is held freely between the teeth, which I would guess is also some kind of approximant -- even if they have another word for it. "Ri" is also like "xi" in respect of there being restricted airflow, a narrow channel between the tongue and the roof of the mouth, but no initial contact.

Anyway, the short answer to your question is that the "short i" isn't an "i". P0M 18:27, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sino-Japanese
Sino-Japanese has been deleted. Quadell (talk) 14:07, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Consciousness of Differences
I put an answer to your comments on my own discussion page. P0M 22:09, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Buddhas
So far as I know they are all representations of the Buddha. Some temples have dozens of Buddhas, donated by benefactors over many years. Adam 07:59, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is not at all strange. I visited a temple in Bangkok which had at least fifty Buddhas, all in a row. For Buddhists, more Buddhas equals more merit. Adam 08:39, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can assure you they are all images of the Buddha. There were a lot more than three, that was just a nice group of three that I photographed. Adam 11:37, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: welcome
Hi Nat! -- Yeah - good to be back, though Ladakh is awesome. Regarding Vajrayana, I don't really like to go near Vajrayana.. It seems to be highly politicised by a load of people who say lots, but don't appear to be able to back any of it. I feel unqualified to begin, and also it is hard enough to come to agreement with a term like 'Hinayana', let alone Vajrayana! 20040302

Your edit on list of religions
Earlier today you removed the three Buddhist sects from the list of religions. Your comment was: I think Buddhism is usually regarded as one religion, and Schools is the best place to look for more information. There was no mention that Buddhism was three religions. Besides what is a religion? There is no clear definition, appealing common thought is a logical fallacy. Your page may be the best place to look for schools however, the title on the top of the page is: Religions, sects and denominations. The three major denominations (or sects or traditions) of Buddhism belong under it. If we remove the three schools we must remove Catholicism from under Christianity. It would be better to put a note to see the schools page and leave the three traditions up. --metta, T he  S unborn  &#x2638;  16:37, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * By the way, do we have any idea why someone thinks (Indian subcontinental) is a necessary qualifier? <-- from Sunborns talk page


 * Yeah, I don't know why LordSuryaofShropshire wanted it that way, something about Indic roots or something. He is comming from a Hindu POV however and may not fully mesh with my western Buddhist POV. His exact words are: However, in this regard, both the Dharma and Indic connection are fundamental to understanding the genesis of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and, much later on, Sikhism. I think they can stand side by side without interfering with one the other's purport. If you want to remove the indian subcontenental section heading go for it. I just wait around week before reverting something that was reverted on me to see if they really care. --metta, T he  S unborn  &#x2638;  04:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was actually just adding a separate section below on the Indic topic, but I couldn't help seeing this comment. I'll just add that there's no Hindu bias here. This has nothing to do with religious background of the writer. I study Buddhist texts (from Nagarjuna to Zen) all the time. I was merely pointing to the origin of the faiths, which is clearly in India. It also has nothing to do with my being Indian. As I've mentioned below, any neutral observer and/or commentator dealing with Eastern religion will readily acknowledge that Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are all Indian in their original conception and that it has nothing to do with POV. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:36, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Nikaya
Hey there - Please can you deal with the Nikaya article for the mo? I am still trying to get some sleep in from the Hinayana discussion! 20040302

List of Religions: Dharmic religions
I mention the Indian subcontinent because all the religions listed find their origin and much of their primary development in the Indian subcontinent. I am aware that both Buddhism and Hinduism, the latter to a lesser extent of course, both spread to the South East outside of India and that modern Buddhism includes Dhyana/Zen Buddhism (Chinese) in its fold. However, even the most neutral Chinese or Japanese Buddhist, Christian or Hindu scholar will refer to Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism (and Sikhism) as Indic religions in origin. I think this primary link is important enough to be mentioned.--LordSuryaofShropshire 20:21, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * The origin of the Abrahamic religions is not quite analagous to that of the Indic faiths. While the Dharma religions all saw their birthing in the Indian subcontinent and are routinely referred to by all sorts of scholars as "Indic religions," Abrahamic faiths cannot be pointed to as "Middle Eastern faiths." No one calls them that and nor does it make sense. Christianity's primary growth was witnessed in massive fluctuations from Jerusalem to Italy. Buddhism, on the other hand, had over a millenium of growth in India and can be called an Indian religion. Later developments certainly have led to a Chinese and other variant forms, but this doesn't change the relationship the Indic religions have with one another. I don't know why it's so upsetting to have them called Indic. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:11, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * First of all, you're applying anachronistic labels to Ancient India. The subcontinent in general is known as India, including strethes of Afghanistan and the North-West (i.e. Taxila, etc.). Nepal and Tibet were also a part of greater India. Buddhism had about a millenium or more, as I said before, of growth in India unlike Christianity, which can't be said to have developed a fully concretized structure in one single place. Also, no one calls Christianity a "Middle Eastern" religion. Simple. People do call Buddhism an Indic/Indian religion. I recall a great deal of discussion about Wikipedia's preference for standard forms of reference. Indic religion is a standard form, whereas "Middle Eastern" has rarely, if ever, been used as a catch-all for the Abrahamic faiths. The page isn't helping people understand the origins and linkages between sets of religions by presenting them with jargon (Dharma for many is alien and means nothing). By giving the most reasonable, standard and universally accepted classifications one renders the List of religions practical, as opposed to unrealistically homogenous throughout. --LordSuryaofShropshire 07:25, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well not really, Tibet isn't a part of an ancient greater India. I sort of kept thinking of it in terms of Nepal. But regardless, Buddhism only developed a uniquely Tibetan strand almost 1500 years after its (vague period of) inception, so my point that Buddhism makes much more sense as an Indian religion than does Christianity as a Middle Eastern religion (obviously in my opinion) still stands. --LordSuryaofShropshire 07:45, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

List of Buddhists
Oh, it was yours. Hmmm, the reason is that with your standard, you have to include about 100 or 1000 of Japanese names because the country are predominantly buddhist. And what about China, Korea or Thailand. I think for famous political figures from buddhist countries to qualify for inclusion, you have to shows that he was uniquely devout or had unique influence to Buddhism. Tojo doesn't qualify for either case. As of Noriega, I wasn't aware that he was a Buddhist and I thought I should checke the source. If he is indeed a buddhist, yes, for South American, that is very rare case so he should be included. FWBOarticle 07:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Most Japanese have buddhist burial and i would say that older generation was more religious. That is why it is problematic to include political figures from Buddhist countries whose religious practice was entirely private matter for them.  For example, Bismark was a committed Christian but I think it would be odd to list him in Famous Christian Politicvian.  And what about Al Gore, JFK, George Bush, Kerry, or for that matter majority of U.S. politicans or what about Tony Blair.  And let not forget Queen Eliabeth or Queen Victoria.  I think the section itself has bit of problem. FWBOarticle 07:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

O.K. I just think that it would be difficult to complie meaningful list but I will see how the list turns our. FWBOarticle 09:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Michael Colley
Actually, I got it from a paper version at the convention which didn't have a copyright mark, but I'll get permission. Is there a particular wikipedia-approved method for this? Mcarling 20:29, 5 Sep 2004

Wise decision, I think, to delete the ever-growing quote section from "property" -- who on earth has never had anything to say about property! the growth prospects were literally unbounded, as is that of kudzu. Nice swordsmanship with that Gordian knot. --216.47.180.111 14:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

David Frawley
Yes, I've certainly heard of him. I would, first of all, hesitate to ascribe to him all of India's acceptance as a true spiritual teacher from the West. Rather, he was titled a true acharya/teacher by one major group. But you would be hard-pressed to mention his name to the average Hindu in India and find true recognition. Essentially, he's an extremely well-read Vedic scholar as well as a hardline Hindu, his compass limited to educated and elite circles of academics in India. In my opinion, his learning plus his white background seems to inspire in Hindu right-wingers great excitement as if a truly Western voice has taken up the cause of Hinduism. As a liberal (and I would like to believe well-read) American, I take everything of his with a grain of salt. He definitely has an amazing grasp of scriptures and anybody could learn from him, but his association with the more virulently fanatic Indian cliques worries me sometimes. As for the page, I edited the 'recognized in India' part to reflect reality. Aside from that, it seems accurate.--LordSuryaofShropshire 20:45, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Karmapa
Nat, there could be a bit of conflict going on between supporters of the two claimants to the title of Karmapa going on over on that article. I noticed you tried to set a NPOV earlier, perhaps you could keep an eye on it? 18:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I know you are avoiding working on this page, but it several people have put in some work now, and the controversial part moved to Karmapa controversy. So you may be pleasantly surprised when you come back to it. Billlion 06:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Other Wiki Languages
Oh? Where are they? I don't see them. I must be sitting here too long. Are they on every page? I am workingon some Karate stuff at themoment and thought this was a good place to get some 'free' material very quickly. Show me those links and how I can use them, please! :-) [[User:Whiskers|whiskers (talk)]] 07:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh! I see it on the left. Is it on every page? I have never noticed it before. But is it only there for pages of the same name, I think. If I want to link other pages on the same subject, then I do need to put them in manually, don't I? So how do they work, anyway? I have seen those blahblah entries at the bottoms of the edit page before and have added some myself, without actually ever knowing what they do, but just putting the proper translated word in the blank. Is this how it works? [[User:Whiskers|whiskers (talk)]] 07:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, gee! That sure is complicated with the other skin. I find even this default monoface a bit confusing yet. There are so many buttons and sometimes I'm not really so sure what's happening, but I have gotten the hang of it pretty quickly. I tried classic, but think I want to revert to mono agian, because I couldn't see the + button in classic - I guess it's hiding somewhere. I suppose I should read more of the tutorial about languages. I am trilingual and like the idea of full integration of the data in a seamless way, regardless of language. [[User:Whiskers|whiskers (talk)]] 07:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hank Hanegraaff
As far as I know, Hank is involved in all sorts of polemics against many Charismatic and Pentecostal leaders. That's why I put him on the category list. In other words, Hank is involved directly in criticising Charismatic teaching. Surely this deserves space on the category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Topics page! I wish to revert - can you please contact me about this issue? One Salient Oversight 07:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Introvigne and CESNUR
Hello Nat Krause, I read what you wrote on talk:Aum Shinrikyo. Let me first state my background. I am an ex-member of Sathya Sai Baba and because of my unfortunate involvement with this group am critical of new religious movements. I have an opinion on CESNUR, based on a lot of reading of works of its scholars, and that is that the quality of CESNUR's work depends very much on the scholar. I consider myself an anti cult activist but I oppose making general negative statements about CESNUR affiliated scholars. I have my doubts though if even the best of CESNUR scholars fully understand the psychological traumas that NRMs can cause. Andries 17:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Nat, I do not have an opinion about the quality of Introvigne's articles even though it is fact that he is controversial. Sorry. Andries 18:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wisconsin towns
I left a rather verbose reply to your query on my talk page. older ≠ wiser 12:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An oldy but a goody
Well, it's not me who added that. It's Imran. See. And the sentence "Go-Yozei is regarded as the father of the Toyotomi family." is odd. I don't know what "father" means in this context, but Emperor Go-Yozei just bestowed the surname (uji) Toyotomi on Hideyoshi. And the imperial family is never to adopt its subjects. --Nanshu 03:46, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mahayana
Good editorial Nat - I liked the changes. (20040302)

- Chuck Muller here. I'm a pretty extensive contributor to the Buddhism area. Suggestion: regarding the Buddhism box, I think the entry at the top "terms and concepts," is a redundant piece of human labor that does not well utilize Wikipedia's built-in tools, like ((Category:Buddhist terms)). In other words, rather than building a separate word list, we can just add Category links at the bottom of all these terms. I've begun to do it. Eventually, I would suggest the same kind of strategy for Buddhist persons, temples, texts, etc. Acmuller

Korean Buddhism
Hi Nat, after Acmuller wanted to remove his text and later seriously mutilated the article, I did a rewrite. However, in this process a few questions popped up. Could you take a look at Talk:Korean Buddhism and the article and see if you can help? Thanks, Lupo 06:35, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re:God
See my reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 11:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

URGENT: Opposition to "Sam Spade": See User:Spleeman/Sam Spade
See a critic's tracking of SamSpade's activities on Wikipedia at User:Spleeman/Sam Spade Vote "NO", or reverse your vote, even at this late hour. This is criticle (and critical) information! IZAK 10:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See: User:Spleeman/Sam Spade:


 * From Sam's own user page: User:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases
 * Removes references to groups such as the KKK as "right-wing"
 * Attempts to sugarcoat racist views
 * The claim the Geli Raubal was Hitler's mistress is just that, a claim.
 * Wants Hitler labeled as a socialist on the communism page (see Talk:Communism)
 * Insists on including his personal theories regarding a relationship between nazism and Chinese communism in nazism article:
 * User_talk:Andries
 * Talk:Nazism
 * From Talk:Socialism:
 * "I intend to do what I always have, which is insist that the Nazi's were socialist because... they were." (Sam Spade 00:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC))
 * Called another editor a "fascist" (Talk:Socialism). This is similar to his attempts to try to provoke me by implying that I was a nationalist, or not an anarchist:
 * "Enforcing american spelling is a sign of nationalism, and would therefore seem to suggest your not an anarchist? Or perhaps your a "anarcho-nationalist"? ;p" (Sam Spade 08:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC), User_talk:Spleeman)
 * "Censorship isn't very anarchist" (Sam Spade 23:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC), Talk:Anarchism/Archive10)
 * More on belief in non-racial eugenics: Why Sam is Right Wing (a list by User:Stopthebus18)
 * Stopthebus18: "People (including our country) have done horrible things in the name of eugenics." (StoptheBus18 16:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
 * Sam Spade: "Seems to work in Singapore. Bad things have been done in the name of all sorts of medicine, but we don't stop going to the doctor, do we?" (Sam Spade 17:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
 * Guess what everybody!!! "The attempt to paint them [the Nazis] as "reactionaries" is a propagandistic fraud." (Sam Spade 16:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC), Talk:Nazism) Wow! You learn something new everyday.... Not.
 * Hmm. For some reason, Sam doesn't want anybody to know that white-supremacist Wolfgang Droege was involved in drug trafficking.


 * You've got to be kidding. For one thing, I don't think Sam is going to have the votes necessary to become an admin anyway, so what's the point of this? - Nat Krause 10:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Brahma
I did the move, but I'm also posting it to the Pump to see if this is the best dab method. Never mind, it seems good to me. Thanks for giving me my first personal admin power request. :) Incidentally, you can only move a page over another if the victim page is a redirect, only has 1 history, and is a redirect to the page being moved there. That was the problem. --Golbez 07:21, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Idolatry
Re: Idolatry From a Hindu point of view, Hindus would consider the Abrahmanic God (Yahweh) to be the same as Narayana or Shankara. Furthermore, Muslims, Christians and Jews all supposedly worship the same God yet Jews wouldn't consider Allah to be equivalent to Yahweh even though Muslims state that Yahweh and Allah are the same God. The same goes with Christians and Jews. All paths to God are different but equivalent. As the Vedas state, "Truth is one, the wise call by different names." Additionally, Sikhs are not idolators either as they have similarities with Abrahmanic religions as their religion has both Muslim and Hindu influences even though Sikhism is a separate and independent religion. This differences between Jews, Muslims and Christians are not that different from Vaishnavities and Shaivites (in Hinduism) who have differences. Vaishnvaites believe Vishnu is the supreme God while Shaivites believe Shiva is the supreme God even though both sectarian scriptures state that Shiva and Vishnu are the same God but different roles of God, one as Preserver and the Destroyer. Also many consider Sikhism in the Abrahmanic religious tradition (see wikpedia article on Abrhamanic religions) as it is influenced by Islam.

Thank you for your respected criticism.

Also you placed an alternative view for the note on idolatry. I respectfully disagree. THis would be the view of practically all Hindus. Truth is one, the wise call by different names. Please read the following sites.

http://www.hinduism-today.com/archives/2004/4-6/37-52_ten_questions.shtml

http://www.hinduism-today.com/archives/2003/10-12/44-49_four_sects.shtml

Idolatry
Re: Idolatry From a Hindu point of view, Hindus would consider the Abrahmanic God (Yahweh) to be the same as Narayana or Shankara. Furthermore, Muslims, Christians and Jews all supposedly worship the same God yet Jews wouldn't consider Allah to be equivalent to Yahweh even though Muslims state that Yahweh and Allah are the same God. The same goes with Christians and Jews. All paths to God are different but equivalent. As the Vedas state, "Truth is one, the wise call by different names." Additionally, Sikhs are not idolators either as they have similarities with Abrahmanic religions as their religion has both Muslim and Hindu influences even though Sikhism is a separate and independent religion. This differences between Jews, Muslims and Christians are not that different from Vaishnavities and Shaivites (in Hinduism) who have differences. Vaishnvaites believe Vishnu is the supreme God while Shaivites believe Shiva is the supreme God even though both sectarian scriptures state that Shiva and Vishnu are the same God but different roles of God, one as Preserver and the Destroyer. Also many consider Sikhism in the Abrahmanic religious tradition (see wikpedia article on Abrhamanic religions) as it is influenced by Islam.

Thank you for your respected criticism.

Also you placed an alternative view for the note on idolatry. I respectfully disagree. THis would be the view of practically all Hindus. Truth is one, the wise call by different names. Please read the following sites.

http://www.hinduism-today.com/archives/2004/4-6/37-52_ten_questions.shtml

http://www.hinduism-today.com/archives/2003/10-12/44-49_four_sects.shtml