User talk:Priyanath/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Priyanath/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages with  so others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
 * How to edit a page and write a great article
 * The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
 * The handy Manual of Style
 * And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123  17:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Mahavatar Babaji
Hello. I have put in my proposal for a short paragraph mentioning YGS and his book (as with Govindan) but without a quote. HD seems OK with it, but NTF doesn't. If we like the version that is there, then we can keep an eye on it and WP:3RR will do the rest. --Fire Star 13:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fire Star, Thank you for your efforts. I think this is a very good compromise, and I'm all for it. A series of entirely neutral external links is the next step, and it may be you don't have to do that. Priyanath 16:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please Help Us Clean WP
Hamsacharya Dan is back with his usual vandalism. Adityanath is going on a holiday. Please see my Talk Page, Mahavatar Babaji Talk Page, and Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath Talk page to understand the situation that led me to you. We need your help and other sysops whom you might know.

Thank you so much, brother.

No To Frauds 23:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

See my vote and comment on the Talk:Mahavatar_Babaji page. I believe that YGS should have small minority POV weight on the Mahavatar Babaji and Kriya Yoga pages.

Priyanath 16:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath


 * I once again thank you for your objectivity, despite our differences. This is in the true essence of Yoga tradition.  Hamsacharya dan 21:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, our moderator friend can arrive at something that all of us with strong opinions (myself, NoToFrauds, yourself, and others) can live with. --Priyanath 23:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Priya - yes I'm sure we can come to an agreement. I just wanted to note that I prefer dealing with you on this.  The other editors  - Baba Louis, Chai Walla, TonyVaughn are brand new members of Wikipedia that seem to have joined conveniently all at the exact same time (to bolster NoToFrauds POV?).  Anyway, it doesn't matter, as long as the final edit doesn't contain any slandering remarks, and are not false remarks.  My bottom line is to make sure it's not UNfactual.  People may not agree with my "facts" and may wish to contest those facts, but that's not an excuse to resort to non-facts that pose as facts written by people who don't even know YGS.  I'm writing to ask for your support on this - there should be no excuse for disgracing someone and it causes me a lot of heartache to have to deal with that.  Thanks... Hamsacharya dan 09:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I will agree to the 2 sentences that we've agreed upon already, as long as nobody else disgraces things. I'd like fair representation in Kriya Yoga, as you and I have agreed upon before.  Thus you and I are totally in agreement.  What I'm asking for is that if you see any further slander in the article itself, or deletions, that you will uphold our agreement in the spirit of concensus, and change it back, as you've done before.  Is that possible?  Hamsacharya dan 10:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Dan, I'll support what Fire Star decides on, whether I, or you, agree with it or not. If people try and change it significantly, I'll do my best to change it back to what he decides upon. Even though I don't agree with the aggressive approach taken by people on both sides, I do trust that everyone is sincere in their strong beliefs. Regarding new people coming along to edit articles, you were in that category recently, and I was too at one time. I'm sure that will happen again on these pages. The good thing about Wikipedia is that we can edit and create articles. The bad thing is that other people can edit and create articles ;-)


 * 'Facts' are tricky. When we have strong feelings, we tend to see them as facts. That's why a third party moderator is a help here. I think the best answer is for you to work on a YGS page, but even that will have to have a neutral POV, or others will come along and try to 'balance' it.
 * Priyanath


 * Yeah, I don't mind if people wish to dispute facts. I very much understand if someone has misgivings about that.  I certainly do - especially some of the other claims in the babaji page.  But I have never tried to remove them or alter them in any way.  That's the same basic courtesy that I'm asking for, and I will be happy to keep my edit short and equal in size.  You actually commented about someone in the talk page saying that YGS should have the same space as Govindan and other claims - well, you addressed that comment to me, but you didn't know that I was the one that wrote that comment.  So, I'm in full accord with you.  I admit that when I first came on, it was a bit selfish to put in 3 paragraphs in that page, since Hamsa Yoga is at this point a minority POV - that was part of my strong beliefs coming through.  Now that we've gone through this ordeal, I'm happy to keep it down to the same size as the other claims.  Again my only concern is that there is no disgracing.  I may have acted aggressively in the past, but I never did so at the expense of other teachers or POVs. --Dan


 * Dan, I agree with you about people trying to disgrace other teachers. But even then, sometimes it's a sincere, but immature, attempt to get all the 'facts' out there (and sometimes it's just being nasty). And I doubt we'll ever see the end of the more nasty approach, unfortunately. Priyanath 23:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know what you mean about it being about getting the 'facts' out. It's possible that some people may have had bad experiences with a teacher, and then make a sincere effort to vilify that person thereafter, in an attempt to warn others from the same fate.  We should have compassion, as we may act in the same way at certain times in our lives... I still don't feel it constitutes 'right action', however - it is destructive to both the individual taking part in that action, and those that take the time to listen to that negativity.  Sri Yukteswar writes in the Holy Science that remaining calm in all circumstances is a technique that converts rajas into sattva...or something like that (it's been a while since I read it)... I'm primarily concerned with striving inwardly in respect to that, but for the sake of my Guru, I'm hoping we can all act from that level on here..


 * I agree - it's sad to see every spiritual teacher vilified by some unhappy student or other. The vilifying turns more people off from true spiritual seeking than the original mistake that the teacher did, or didn't, make. Priyanath 00:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

About Lahiri

 * Thanks for your recent comment regarding my source material on Lahiri Mahasaya. A followup comment/ reply to your comment has been posted at my discussion page.


 * -Scott P. 19:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppeting
Priyanath, please forgive me for adding your name to the sockpuppeting list. I was pretty sure that you weren't involved, but out of respect for PseudoSudo's investigation, I left your name in. I respect your contributions on here very much, and your readiness to always look for resolution in the face of conflict. Hamsacharya dan 19:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't take offense. It's obvious there's some sockpuppeting going on, so every prolific editor on these pages should be looked at while this is going on. I'm happy that someone is looking into this.Priyanath 19:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

kriya yoga
Hi there! Please compare the differences first before you revert. I have never deleted Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee under 'Kriya Yoga lineages.' What are you talking about? Also the former list did not follow any arrangement pattern for anyone to accuse me of demoting other lineages. In the external links section Self-Realization Fellowship was placed on top because it was the first established Kriya Yoga organization among the list, it was followed by three or for more others based on the dates they were founded. I have also added Center for Spiritual Awareness' website as well as Yogiar S.A.A. Ramaiah's, Håå Course Center, etc and corrected the links so that they point directly to the relevant pages. Please exclude me from your edit wars. --- &#2384; Brahmachari Smith 16:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

new note on talk page. your input requested.. Hamsacharya dan 04:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You'd better take a look at what Dan has done to Kriya yoga. It's much more than simply adding a bit about Gurunath. &mdash;Adityanath 17:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dan and Adityanath. I've done a rearranging of the different Kriya teachers in a new way, and I've explained why I think that's the best way to do this. Let's discuss it on the Kriya talk page. &mdash; Priyanath 05:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Hinduism
You may consider joining, thanks --GizzaChat  &#169; 05:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath
Well, Priyanath, it's clear that HD doesn't understand nPOV. I don't have the patience to try to keep the article neutral. Why don't you put the back? That will bring some more neutralizing experts. &mdash;Adityanath 12:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Passed away --> died on Kali Yuga article
Hi Rich, I reverted the correction that you made to the Kali Yuga article for two reasons. One, 'passed away' is part of a direct quote in the article. The other, more important, is that 'passed away' in that passage refers to a number of years (4,994) passing away, rather than a person. There are a couple of years in my wild youth that seemingly 'died', rather than 'passed', but in this context it's probably not appropriate. Is this a bot that made the correction? Just curious. &#2384; Priyanath 17:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good call. Thanks.  No it's not (although I do have a  Bot account), there are about 1% quotes and about 1% correct usage.  This was, unusually, both and I didn't spot it, must have been tired.  Thanks again. Rich  Farmbrough 15:59 22  April 2006 (UTC).

YGS page
hey, I've revised the page according to the nPOV redux points, and Baba Louis has been doing some additional edits. Can you please comment on whether you feel that NPOV can be removed at this point. And if not, then please say specifically what you feel should be done. I know you've made some comments before regarding this in response to the previous version. I've been amenable to recent changes, and would like to remove the NPOV tag by consensus to avoid conflict. If you could comment, it would be appreciated. Hamsacharya dan 01:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Dan, I have a few suggestions, but that's all they are. I don't want to be put into a position of 'approving' the article for removal of the NPOV tag, as Baba Louis suggested. I do think he's made some good points, and the article reads much much better. But I'm not going to get into a back and forth 'yes it is', 'no it's not' thing on this. Mostly these are overall suggestions, looking at the article from the view of someone seeing it for the first time. I think these suggestions would also help avoid someone else coming along and having a problem with it.
 * 1. I don't understand why that section is titled 'Satguru'. Based on the content there, it should say something like 'Current Activities of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath'. It also raises the question, still unanswered, of where he got all the names and titles 'Satguru', 'Yogiraj', 'Gurunath'. I think the article should explain that in some way.
 * 2. When you say that the Kabir connection 'thus establishing the direct connection between Mahavatar Babaji and Gorakshanath', I think it's an indirect connection, since it's a valid argument that Babaji and Gorakshanath could be two different people who both initiated Kabir, which would make it an indirect connection. In the same section, when you say 'several other direct sources and indirect links', you should have footnotes referring to these 'several other's (rather than getting into a long discourse on a subject that should be on the Gorakshanath page, or somewhere else).
 * 3. I think one short poem is more than enough to show an example of his poetry.
 * 4. I'm still uncomfortable, for some reason, in having quotes by YGS about his experiences with Sundarnath, and Shiv-Goraksha. I don't see first hand autobiographical visions in other 'biographies' on WP. I think a short description of each (not a quote by YGS), with a reference to 'see more in Wings to Freedom' makes it appear more neutral.
 * These are only suggestions - I'm not holding you to anything, and I'm also not suggesting that anything that I haven't mentioned here is fine. I'm only pointing out what I think are the most obvious, and I'm not inclined to add a bunch more later. Baba Louis has made some good suggestions - reasonable ones in my opinion. And I think the article is reading much more like a WP biography than before. My suggestions also, I think, will discourage others from coming along later and adding their two cents. Good luck, sincerely &#2384; Priyanath 00:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC on User:Hamsacharya dan
Priyanath, could you take a moment to add your support or contribute an outside view to this RfC on User:Hamsacharya dan's conduct? Thanks. &mdash;Hanuman Das 13:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC
I have included some comments in the response section. By siding with Hanuman Das you are effectively saying that this is a one-sided dispute, rather than a complicated dispute 2-sided dispute. Is that really how you feel? Hamsacharya dan 21:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what Hanuman Das says. I agree with a little bit of what you say. So it's not entirely one-sided, black-and-white. But I'm not going to be the judge here. I added my name so that a moderator/mediator/administrator can look at this complex issue and make a decision, I hope. Personally, I'm very soured on Wikipedia based on my experience here, and am not interested in being involved with this any more than to try and help draw the attention of someone who can do something about it. &#2384; Priyanath 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that all you need in order to understand my POV is to find a point of contention with Hanuman Das and see what his reactions are. See how he deals with you. You will see his relentless misuse of his privilege to edit on wikipedia. You and I started off on the wrong foot with the mahavatar babaji article and kriya yoga article - I, as a newbie, admittedly made some egregious mistakes - but our interaction has demonstrated a willingness to come to an agreement and learn from our mistakes. And the end result is that the articles are arguably better. Hanuman Das demonstrates no willingness to come to an agreement nor work together. When I write comments, I know that he's not going to try to understand them, but will try to see how he can get around them. That fosters ill will and rivalry. Look, we're all here to promulgate our agendas - whether our agenda is earth peace, or to inform people about topics that we happen to know a lot about or love (like our teachers), or whatever. The difference is that Hanuman Das is here to promote his agenda at the expense of truth. I believe that I am here to uphold truth, in spite of my agenda - and I believe the same about you. That's why we've been able to come to an agreement on these articles. That's also why you have not made an attempt to bulldoze over another teachers article. If those guys let up and stopped waging a relentless war - I would feel totally at ease discussing your specific points of contention with the article and working with you on it. I can't work with someone who's intentions are not pure. And neither would you. Hamsacharya dan 05:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Dan, I really don't have more than a passing interest in contending specific points in that article, and I will likely keep my mouth shut from here on. I'm more interested in seeing you be able to write a neutral article that doesn't draw the wrath of the Naths, and others. My main agenda in this case is to see harmony and agreement. I think it's possible if it's a MUCH more biographical article that doesn't try and prove specific points, or to try and prove the greatness of YGS. I think a biography can be neutral and interesting, and also draw people to learn more about YGS, without trying to promote and prove. I feel that your desire to promote and prove has pushed some serious buttons in those three that is unfortunately causing a conflict without any seeming resolution. In an earlier discussion, I commented that there was boorish behavior on both sides of this dispute (yours and theirs), and I still believe that to be true. Those three are relentless and very unpleasant. You've been relentless, too. I would enjoy seeing a compromise, more for the appreciation of seeing peace, than to see 'my' version of the truth in an article. One possible solution would be to start from scratch, with an entirely new approach to a biographical article, on a sandbox page. But it seems that both sides are too wedded to their agendas now. Perhaps finding a mediator who would work with both sides on a brand new article would be one approach. I don't have the patience and time to do much more than say that I very sincerely wish you the best - on the article, and more importantly on maintaining your inner peace and joy. &#2384; Priyanath 05:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The only thing that truly matters is meditate meditate meditate. This way I think that peace and joy will be inevitable in spite of these games of ducks and drakes... That's how I see this in the big picture :) Nothing is good or bad.. God is infused into every atom of vice and virtue equally.  I think that's why he can afford to play these games through us.  The Divine Romance..  Hamsacharya dan 19:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Basils
Hi Priyanath - thanks for the note; I'll check up on it. May be a day or two till I get round to it - MPF 11:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. This is especially important when marking for speedy-d. ---J.S (t|c) 23:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to WP:AIV
I suggest you take the matter to WP:ANI which would be more appropriate. AIV is for more blatant vandalism, less content disputes. JoshuaZ 02:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience
Dear Priyanath

Thank you for so efficiently responding to my contribution. Obviously, my test worked, and I now know that any random idiot can't just wake up and decide, "I think I'll submit an article to wikipedia."

My doubt-ass sister now has renewed faith in wikipedia and it's safety-net ways of weeding out the idiotic contributions, like my own. By the way, don't expect any more retarded contributions. Now that I have my answer, I won't burden anyone with stupid articles.

Sincerely, Hazoola

May the Force be with you...Hazoola 21:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Hazoola, Don't mention it. Anyone who writes as well as you do (seriously!), might consider writing real articles here. Sincerely, &#2384; Priyanath 00:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi vandalism
Looks like that IP is serious about messing with that article. You might want to request semi-protection at WP:RFPP, or you're going to be reverting forever. Silly people with nothing better to do than mess with articles, anyhow. *headshakes* Tony Fox 05:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

christopher lucky abraham
what was so disparaging about it? how was i attacking him by writting an encyclopedic article about him? i simply stated the facts, perhaps you may help me write it over from a more neutral POV? Qrc2006 23:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC) thanks for your help. however would you consider walking out of meetings whenever anyone disagrees with a treasurer tol be disruptive? Qrc2006 04:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Kali Yuga
Hi Priyanath! Allow me to introduce myself, I'm Dosey and I've being doing some work on the Kali Yuga, I've expanded it a but from what it was, have a look at www.hinduism.co.za it has the mahabharat part where Bhisma talks about the kali yuga. I've decided to omit some of the more sexist parts. On the basis of NPOV. Please have a look at what you think of it and get back to me. thanks, Dosey - 22nd June 2006

Autobiography of a Yogi cover
Hi Pratheepps, I thought I'd seen all the different Autobiography of a Yogi editions (first edition, last edition, special editions, etc.) until I saw the version you put on the Paramahansa Yogananda article. Can you satisfy my curiosity, and tell me where this one is sold and who the publisher is? Great photos on your user page, by the way. Thank you, &#2384; Priyanath 13:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sterling Publishers Pvt Ltd; ISBN 81-207-2524-7 ; Rs 100. I bought it at Chennai, not sure if it was at Higgin Bothams or Landmark. www.sterlingpublishers.comPratheepps 15:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Bob Brinker vandalism
Someone is deleting content to the opposing view again on the Bob Brinker page. Any ideas? WikiHelperUSA 17:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.35.2.148 WikiHelperUSA 05:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed someone is deleting arguments on the Bob Brinker discussion page! It is the same person trying to cover up Brinker's bad advice in the past. I copied this off the talk history page to save here where he probably won't find it. copying the note to here made a new topic... sorry... WikiHelperUSA 20:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Questionable" Advertising Someone Deleted this Note!
This is what has so many upset. Brinker advertises he was at 60% cash between January 2000 and March 2003 but he neglects to tell potential customers he recommended putting half that money into the NASDAQ when it was more than double today's level. PROOF Follows:

His Advertising shows major calls showing he was at 60% cash between Jan 2000 and March 2003 http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2033/2006mailedadvertisementp1ug7.jpg While these two letters sent to subscribers and clients of his money management firm say otherwise. http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/3214/20001016actimmediatelyqqqcg3.jpg and http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/6342/20001019bjgqqqmemonl2.jpg (The NASDAQ was at 3418 on Oct 19. 2000, the date of the letter)

This is the start of an article at Suite101 to explain it all http://investment.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/7/86-94#message_9

WikiHelperUSA 20:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

=Raja Yoga controversy= Dear Hinduism Project editors,

There is a controversy on the Hinduism regarding Raja Yoga. Please read the debate on the Hinduism discussion page. Your comments are requested on the Hinduism discussion page to help resolve the controversy. Thank you. 68.239.78.172 15:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Will you kindly?
Will you kindly check my comments of the day in talk pages of Hinduism. I hope you have read the entire Raj Yoga controversy before voting.Swadhyayee 03:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism typos
Thanks for cleaning up typos on the Hinduism page! HeBhagawan 15:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

One question: Do you think that the "Vedas" section (just above the "Classification of Scriptures" section) is superfluous, considering that we already have a section on "Vedas and Other Scriptures" as well as the section on "Shruti" which also describes the Vedas? The only reason I hesitate to delete this section myself is that I have already deleted other superfluous material by the user who added this section, and it is an improvement over some of his earlier edits. HeBhagawan 15:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the whole article is too wordy, but I don't have time right now to work on it. And I also hesitate to single out one wordy section done by a certain editor, until there is some some progress with mediation. I think that most of the sections with a 'Main Article: '....'' link could be condensed. Just my opinion. &#2384; Priyanath 15:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

Priyanath - thank you
I simply wanted to thank you for the quick and efficient removal of the vandalism from the Hinduism page... I deplore people who put trash in an article. Anyway I just wanted you to know that someone saw what happened and appreciated your dedication.

God as Divine Accountant
Priyanth, you are correct that God as a divine accountant is probably more apt for a Christian analogy. The Brahma Sutras, a text used by all schools of Vedanta agree that God metes out rewards and punishments in consideration of actions of beings. see commentary on Brahma sutras: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-1-12.html "The position of the Lord is to be regarded as similar to that of Parjanya, the giver of rain. Parjanya is the common cause of the production of rice, barley and other plants. The difference between the various species is due to the diverse potentialities lying hidden in the respective seeds. Even so, the Lord is the common cause of the creation of gods, men, etc. The differences between these classes of beings are due to the different merit belonging to the individual souls.

Scripture also declares, "The Lord makes him whom He wishes to lead up from these worlds do a good action. The Lord makes Him whom He wishes to lead down do a bad action" (Kau. Up. III.8). "A man becomes good by good work, bad by bad work" (Bri. Up. III.2.13). Smriti also declares that the Lord metes out rewards and punishments only in consideration of the specific actions of beings. 'I serve men in the way in which they approach Me.' (Bhagavad Gita IV.11)."

If you got a better word for it, please provide.

Thanks

Raj2004 23:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Raj, Thank you for discussing this. I'm really trying to see that there is some scriptural or common belief support for this. My own beliefs are not relevant, at least as far as the article is concerned....
 * I went to that commentary on Brahma Sutras, and my understanding of it is different than yours. The statement there:
 * "The Lord cannot be accused of inequality and cruelty, because enjoyment and suffering of the individual soul are determined by his own previous good and bad actions. Sruti also declares. "A man becomes virtuous by his virtuous deeds and sinful by his sinful acts - Punyo vai punyena karmana bhavati, papah papena" (Bri. Up. III.2.13)." 
 * seems to say that it's the individual's own actions that determine future enjoyment and suffering. Not God meting out reward or punishment.
 * And this statement:
 * '' "The grace of the Lord is like rain which brings the potency of each seed to manifest itself according to its nature. The variety of pain and pleasure is due to variety of Karma."
 * seems to say that the 'rain' of the Lord is neutral, and only brings to fruition the nature of the karma in each seed (soul). Again, it seems to say that the Lord is not punishing or rewarding, but helping bring to fruition whatever karma the individual has created. ''
 * And here:
 *  "The position of the Lord is to be regarded as similar to that of Parjanya, the giver of rain. Parjanya is the common cause of the production of rice, barley and other plants. The difference between the various species is due to the diverse potentialities lying hidden in the respective seeds." 
 * Again that seems to say that the rain is equally given to each plant. And that it's the nature of the seed that determines the 'crop', rather than the nature of the rain (God), which is the same for all.


 * So based on that scripture, it seems wrong to say that the Lord is meeting out punishment and reward, or is a divine accountant. I'm really neutral on this question, but would like to see this referenced so that the article is correct. I personally think that the truth lies in between. That devotion to the Lord can draw His grace, which can free us from paying the full karmic price of our bad deeds. I'm only presenting my own belief to show you that I'm not trying to insert my opinion in the article. I am trying to be sure that the comment you keep re-inserting has scriptural support, and is referenced in the article. Thank you for you help in trying to improve this ever-better article. &#2384; Priyanath 00:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Priyanath and Raj, Both your views of karma definately exist in Hinduism. However, it seems to me that most often Hindus do not dwell much on the matter becasuse the end result is the same: if we perform good actions, there will be good results, and if we perform bad actions, there will be a bad result--regardless of whether God is acting as the Divine Accountant. I don't think that they are really opposing views. They are just different ways of thinking of the same process. It is like asking "Does lightning come from Indra, or does it come from the clouds?" Whichever answer you give could be regarded as correct. But if you have to give a brief answer, it is sufficient to say that it comes from the clouds.

The "Divine Accountant" concept--or something very similar--is emphasized in Christianity, as Priyanath says. There are definately some Hindus who have similar ideas, but they do not usually seem to place much importance on it since the result is the same either way.

A separate question is: "Even if the "Divine Accountant" concept is a true Hindu concept, should it be a part of the Hinduism article?" My feeling is that it should not be a part of the article. Even though some Hindus undoubtedly believe in the concept, I think it is a detail that can safely be left out of an already overly long article without sacrificing clarity. I think it would be better to include a discussion of the "Divine Accountant" concept in the article on reincarnation. HeBhagawan 05:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Priyantah Thanks for the detailed commentary. http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_3/bs_3-2-08.html

This quote states: rom Him (the Lord) are the fruits of actions, for that is reasonable.

o sum up, the nature of the Supreme Brahman has been described. Brahman has been shown to be formless, self-luminous and without difference. It has been established through "Neti-Neti" "not this, not this" doctrine that Brahman is one without a second. It has been conclusively proved that the Lord is the Dispenser of the fruits of Karmas of the people.

Thus, God is the Divine Accountant. Raj2004 09:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I should add that I am not strongly opposed to keeping the "Divine Accountant" sentence the way it is now. It is just a slight preference for leaving it out. But if you feel strongly that it should remain, we can keep it in its current form. HeBhagawan 15:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Raj and HeBhagavan, From 'Dispenser of the fruits of Karmas' to 'Divine Accountant' is a leap that I don't see the scriptures making. 'Bank Teller' would be more accurate, since they dispense the money while the acountant only counts it. But I think the entire analogy is not scriptural, or helpful (too Judgmental Christian God sounding), or a predominate view. I would prefer the article to 1. qualify it the way it is now - 'some see', 'while others see', because in fact that's true, and 2. replace 'divine accountant' with 'some see God as the dispenser of the fruits of people's karma, while others see....'. Thanks. &#2384; Priyanath 16:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, how about this: "Throughout this process, some see God's hand at work, while others consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma."

Or

"Throughout this process, some see God as the Divine Bank Teller, taking in people's actions and paying them back with interest. Temples are like banks, and roadside shrines are like ATMs. Sadhus and Swamis are like investment gurus, and puja is like a stock investment. If one ever needs some capital quickly, one can make a vow (manautī or vrata) to the Divine Accountant, but one must always watch out for rākshasas and asuras, which are like highway robbers. Of course Brahman is like the economy itself. The world is currently in the Kali Yuga, which may be likened to an economic depression. The problem is that even though Brahmā is printing the money, and Vishnu is investing it prudently, Shiva continually goes on spending it. If one falls into bankruptcy, it may be necessary to seek loan forviveness from the bank by performing penance (prayāshchit)."

Hehe, just kidding about that last one. HeBhagawan 17:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good job! I figured you were kidding, but that's why the phrase doesn't sound very scripture-based, because it brings up images like that, and makes devotional practices seem mercenary. I prefer the version you've posted above, with 'some see God's hand at work', which covers all the ways that different teachings see it - divine accountant, divine dispenser, impartially showering rain on the good and bad seeds, etc. It's much more inclusive of the nearly infinite varieties of understanding by different Hindu schools of thought. Thanks. &#2384; Priyanath 18:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I think that God is dispenser of the fruits of one's karma. But to say karma is merely cause and effect seems to go against the theistic denominations of Vaishnavism and Saivism which believes in a role for God. To say that karma is the natural laws of causation does not separate Hinduism from Buddhism. Even Advaita Vedanta, unlike Buddhism believes there is some Agent responsible for dispensing the fruits of one's karma. Raj2004 00:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Then let's say say both, since both views seem to have acceptance in Hinduism. "Throughout this process, some see God as the dispenser of the fruits of karma, while others consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma." I'll change it to that if there is no objection. &#2384; Priyanath 01:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree since stating that the natural laws of causation as sufficient to explain the effects of karma makes it the same as Buddhism. as this site states: " According to Jainism and Buddhism, karma on its own goes and joins the Soul and come to experience. No external Being like God is necessary for it.  Like a calf, among a large number of cow, going and finding its mother for feeding the milk, karma also finds the related person and come to experience.

This explanation has its flaw. Unlike the calf, karma is an unintelligent entity. It cannot go and find out the related person by itself. An intelligent Being with perfect wisdom and power is necessary to make karma to join the related person. This Being is God Siva as explained by Saiva religion." from http://www.geocities.com/shivaperuman/main.html

also, in Vaishnavism, "karma presents infallible justice. It is a part of a system designed and maintained by the Supreme Person, so there is no question of it being impersonal. Bhagavata Purana 3.31.1 says "karmana daiva-netrena" - Karma is supervised by the Lord Paramatma in the heart. In BhP 7.9.41 Prahlada Maharaja begs the Lord for mercy to remove the karma. According to Bhagavata Purana 5.26.6, 6.1-2, Yama is its dispenser directly empowered by the Lord. from, http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/reincarnation.htm Raj2004 01:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I respect your belief. But many Hindus and schools see karma (who's sanskrit root is 'action', and not 'God dispensing fruits of action') as the law of cause and effect. Therefore the article should reflect both views and say something close to "Throughout this process, some see God as the dispenser of the fruits of karma, while others consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma." Please re-read the second sentence of this article, which says "Hinduism encompasses many religious beliefs, practices, and denominations." &#2384; Priyanath 01:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we are focused on theistic Hinduism, which mostly follows Vedanta. Thus, a mere cause and effect is a minority view. Only the samkya and minamsa school follows a cause and effect approach. (see, http://www.ssvt.org/Education/Hinduism%20FAQ.asp#What%20are%20the%20different%20schools%20of%20Hinduism?%20What%20is%20their%20basis%20to%20be%20called%20different%20schools%20of%20Hinduism?%20Are%20they%20important%20to%20understand? Raj2004 01:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

so how about stating that most schools of Hinduism (all theistic schools) believe that God serves as a mediatory and dispesnses the fruits of karma with a minority, non-Vedantic schools believing in a cause and effect theory Raj2004 01:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Raj, for the sake of clarity, simplicity, and NPOV, the passage should stand just as it is, or as I propose above.


 * And Raj, the website you're linking to says:
 * ''5. What is “Karma”?
 * ''Summary Answer: Karma is the result of thoughts, words and deeds that stay with us birth after birth until we live out their consequences – as you sow, so you reap. The law of Karma can be considered as a universal law of cause and effect.


 * ''Detailed Answer:
 * ''Karma refers to both “act” (or action) as well as “results of thought, word and deed.” In the context of rebirth, Karma refers to the latter – the idea of cause and effect. Any thought, word or deed, that is not performed dispassionately with no interest in the results, yields Karma. Well-intentioned acts yield positive Karma (or Punya) and ill-intentioned acts yield negative Karma (Paapa). Such consequences have to be lived out.


 * I believe that's a majority view, but rather than polling all of Hinduism to see who's really in the majority, I vote that we keep the article as is: "Throughout this process, some see God as the "Divine Accountant" taking account of our deeds, while others consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma." Or change it to the more accurate (and still respecting all Points of View): "Throughout this process, some see God as the dispenser of the fruits of karma, while others consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma." Nothing could be more clear, universal, and positive to all points of view, than that statement. &#2384; Priyanath 02:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree with Priyanath. Let's keep it clear, universal, simple and positive. For discussion of finer aspects of theology, we should edit other pages within the Hinduism project.

Several points: Thank you both for your thoughtful comments. HeBhagawan 02:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no need for us make special efforts to show that Hinduism is different from Buddhism in every respect. In some respects it is similar, and in some respects it is different. 'Nuff said.
 * 2) Thank you Raj for finding citations to support your views. That is very good. However, the Shaiva link Raj provided above does not contain any quote supporting what you said, and the Vaishnava link may contain one, but I am not sure where on the page it is. Please cut and paste the sentences you are citing. Thanks!
 * 3) You are both making the mistake of supposing that the question of whether God dispenses fruits of karma is a sectarian question. I am confident that in each major sect you could find people holding either view--and you could find even more who do not think it is a particularly important question. It is not a question of huge imporatnce becasue the answer does not affect how we should live our lives (we should still pursue good karma and avoid bad karma regardless of the answer). it is not even a question that is frequently debated.
 * 4) I think it is dangerous to use "majority-minority" language unless you have very strong evidence to support it (such as a scholarly survey). Most of the time it is better to use "Some Hindus believe x, while others believe y." In many cases, it is very hard to know which view is in the majority, so it is better not to go out on a limb with such claims. (Also, what are we talking about a majority of? Scriptures? Classical Schools of Philosophy? Modern schools? Gurus? Denominations? Individuals?).
 * Or, better yet, for purposes of having a short, clear article, find which part which all agree on and just mention that alone in the main article. Everybody agrees that good karma results in good fruits and bad karma results in bad fruits. Just leave it at that. Don't deny that God is an Accountant, but don't claim that God is the divine accountant either.
 * Raj, which schools are you referring to as non-Vedantic and which as Vedantic? The term Vedantic is used to mean various things: it can mean any school which accepts the Upanishads (which would be most, if not all, Hindus); it can be those who follow the Classical darahana of Vedanta; etc.


 * Thank you HeBhagawan. I agree with everything you said, including "I am confident that in each major sect you could find people holding either view--and you could find even more who do not think it is a particularly important question." Let's keep it clear and simple, and leave the sectarian, theological discussions to the pundits, which I am not and have no desire to be. Because it's not an important question, I'll leave well enough alone, say no more, and turn my thoughts to God and away from the bondage of karma :-) &#2384; Priyanath 03:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Vedanta includes advaita, vishtadvaita and dvaita. The saivite schools, for follow qualifed monism and dualism like Vaishnavism. I would say making karma merely the law of cause and effect (held by the samkya and minamsa schools, which are non-theistic) does not distinguish theistic hinduism from buddhism. It's a common misconception. Otherwise, why worship a God if He does not have the power to mitigate karma and dispense karma? The theistic schools strongly differ. for the saivite view, go to outline of saivism, click on Karma: http://www.geocities.com/shivaperuman/main.html

"Thoughts, words and deeds are vinai or karma. The action or karma we do is called agamiyam.  Even after the action is over, its fruit does not end.  The good and bad actions leave their imprints as punniyam and pavam respectively.  They follow the related soul from birth to birth.

The karma we do in various births are thus following us in large quantity. This quantity of karma is called sanchitham. From this quantity of sanchitha karma a portion comes to soul's experience in its new birth. This karma is called prarabdham. Balance karma will come to experience in future births.

A body suitable to experience the karma is given by God from maya. When and how the karma is to be experienced is decided by God himself.

According to Jainism and Buddhism, karma on its own goes and joins the Soul and come to experience. No external Being like God is necessary for it. Like a calf, among a large number of cow, going and finding its mother for feeding the milk, karma also finds the related person and come to experience.

This explanation has its flaw. Unlike the calf, karma is an unintelligent entity. It cannot go and find out the related person by itself. An intelligent Being with perfect wisdom and power is necessary to make karma to join the related person. This Being is God Siva as explained by Saiva religion."

Raj2004 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Raj, I actually agree with much of what you say - especially that God can mitigate karma. That's why I've always said that both views should be equally expressed in the article, similar to the way it stands now. &#2384; Priyanath 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Priyantah I think you can say non-theistic school beleive in cause and effect. one should say the theistic schools, such as Vedanta believes in God mitigating karma.

Raj2004 00:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Priya and Raj, If it were up to me alone, I would leave out any mention of a divine accountant. Remember, we only have two or three paragraphs to explain the entire concept of karma and reincarnation. So, if I were the sole author, I would leave it out, or move it to the karma or reincarnation page. But since we are writing this article together, I can agree to mention the divine accountant concept as we have already done. But it would be a mistake to let the divine accountant stuff distract from the core concepts.

Raj has done a good job by looking for citations that mention God's role in karma as the divine accountant/apportioner. However, for every source in which this idea is mentioned, there are sure to be many more where the concept of karma is explained without mentioning anything about God being the accountant, dispenser, or bank teller. Karma is usually explained without mentioning God. But sometimes God is mentioned. The article as it stands now reflects this. Let's move on to improving some of the other articles in the Hinduism project. Some of them are complete rubbish, yet we are here spending so much time over one sentence in an article that is pretty good overall. Not to mention neglecting our sādhanā! (Thanks, Priya, for reminding us that writing about spiritual practice should not replace actually doing the practice!) Om Shantih shantih shantih HeBhagawan 05:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC) HeBhagawan 05:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Hebhagawan, Karma is usually explained without mentioning God because in the West, including the United States, most people hear about the Buddhist point of view. That's not necessarily a theistic Hindu point of view.

Raj2004 14:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * HeBhagawan, I think you're doing a great job with the article. I'm going to stay out of any further discussion, since it's just not that important to me, except to repeat my first preference for its simplicity, universality, and willingness to compromise with Raj: "Throughout this process, some see God as the dispenser of the fruits of karma, while others consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma." And my second preference, which is to leave out any mention of God's dispensing or accounting of karma at all, and just mention cause and effect. Do as you feel is best, and you'll have my support. And great work with the article. I hope it reaches featured article status.
 * Raj, we agree more than you think, in terms of our points of view. But for a Wikipedia article, brevity, simplicity, and universality are more important than delineating every point of theological minutiae.
 * And that really is all for me on this. Please let's put it to bed, thanks! Hari Om Tat Sat (or as I heard a Swamiji say, Hari Om That's That!) &#2384; Priyanath 05:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok,sure thing, Priyanth and He Bhagwan

Raj2004 14:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Raj, You say "sure thing," yet I noticed that you have changed the article. HeBhagawan 14:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because you and HeBhagwan keep on changing even though I have cited numerous references to support my view. well how about this: The doctrine of karma includes the law of cause and effect. Those who are theists such as followers of Saivism and Vaishnavism see God as taking account of our deeds and dispensing the fruits of our actions, while others consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma. HeBhagawan 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Raj & Priya, I think we are getting closer to a compromise. Thank you for working in a cooperative manner. Raj, I think you will be pleased with a source that presents your view in a way that makes it seem more relevant.

Throughout this process, many see God as the dispenser of the fruits of action, making sure that everyone gets his own fruits, not someone else's.

I still don't think that the sentence is really necessary, but I could agree to the above sentence. I think we can safely cite both Swamis Bhaskarananda and Krishnananda for this proposition.

I do wish to keep the labels (Theists, Shaivism, Vaishnavism) out of the sentence for this reason: both views can be found within each of these sects. If you are familiar with the Vaishnava sect, for example, you must be aware that not all Vaishnavas think alike! Also, the article already mentions a lot of disagreements among sects, and we don't want to make it too complicated for casual readers.

Raj, once again, thank you for your research. The last time I had a disagreement with someone on Wikipedia, he only cited his own personal beliefs. HeBhagawan 17:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the voice of reason, HeBhagawan. Your comment, "I do wish to keep the labels (Theists, Shaivism, Vaishnavism) out of the sentence for this reason: both views can be found within each of these sects" speaks to the heart of an article on "Hinduism". Hinduism is not a bunch of pedants promoting their absolutist schools of theology. Hinduism is people with their own beliefs that are frequently at odds with the pedants. This is a perfect example. The absolutist statement "Those who are theists such as followers of Saivism and Vaishnavism see God as...", if it remains in the article, needs to be qualified by saying that not all followers of Saivism and Vaishnavism see God that way. I'm sure references could be found to show that. But then the article loses it's clarity, simplicity, and elegance. 'Some see' and 'others see', while not pedantic, is far more accurate - and it conveys the independence of Hindus far better than the implication that 'all' Vaishnavas and Saivites think alike. I doubt that you'll find two of them that think alike! Just look at the three of us here, LOL..... Hari Om &#2384; Priyanath 18:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I also want to add that for purposes of style and clarity, it would be best to place the sentence at the end of the paragraph rather than the beginning. We have to explain what is meant by karma before we can explain God's role in it. HeBhagawan 18:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, obviously theists even within Vaishnavism disagree but they do believe God has some kind of role, either directly or indirectly through Yama. Your view of some belittles the view of theistic followers.

That's my objection.

Raj2004 18:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

well, how about this: Many, who are theistically inclined such as followers of Vaishnavism and Saivism believe God plays some kind of role, for example, such as taking account of our deeds and dispensing the fruits of our actions..

That seems reasonable. what do both of you think? I am open to change so long it does not belittle a point of view, such as stating some.

Raj2004 18:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the article reads much better with the more general 'some' compared to having to get into specific followers of different schools, with the then neccessary references showing that there are different views even among theists. Raj, as a theist, I don't feel belittled by being called 'some'. You're trying to speak for all theists, vaishnavites, saivites - please don't. We're trying to write the best encyclopedia article - having a debate, with references showing specific and different views of sects and sub-sects within theism, vaishavism, and saivism promoting different beliefs around a relatively minor point of reincarnation - well, it's not the right place for it. I very strongly support HeBhagavan's approach, because it's much better writing for an encyclopedia article on Hinduism. &#2384; Priyanath 18:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

reincarnation is not a minor point. To deny that God has some kind of role in karma is common for all theists and I am not trying to speak for everyone. Many in Hinduism are trying to make it suit western tastes.

Raj2004 19:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Raj,

"Some" can mean any number from one to infinity. It doesn't favor or disfavor one view. The advantage of using "some" is that it does not commit one to a specific number for which one does not have proof. So I don't see it as belittling, especially when BOTH views are marked by "some" or others."(eg. "Some believe x, while others believe y").

In any case, I don't know why you are still debating over whether to use "some." If you re-read my suggested sentence above, I used the word "many" to support your view, and I even left out any mention of the opposing view. That is a big concession. I don't know if Priyanath will agree to such a big concession, but I would have expected you to be pretty happy with it. I even gave you an additional citation. Here is what I suggested:

Throughout this process, many see God as the dispenser of the fruits of action, making sure that everyone gets his own fruits, not someone else's. HeBhagawan 18:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC) No. some is an indeterminate number.somer means being an undetermined or unspecified one: It can mean zero or infinity and it's a vague term.

Many, according to www.dictionary.com, means constituting or forming a large number; numerous: many people. Large number of theists believe in God playing a role.

Raj2004 19:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC) I still don't like that line. How about this: Many, who are theistically inclined, believe God plays some kind of role, for example, such as taking account of our deeds and dispensing the fruits of our actions..

Raj2004 18:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To satisfy both of you, I wrote in "many" Those who are theists such as many followers of Saivism and Vaishnavism see God as playing a role, such as taking account of our deeds and dispensing the fruits of our actions, while others consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma.

Raj2004 18:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What don't you like about my suggestion?HeBhagawan 19:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what I am objecting to. I don't want the sentence to say "many;" I was making a concession to say that for the sake of compromise. What I don't want it to say is "Theists, Vaishnavas, Shaivas," etc, for the reasons already mentioned. Please reread what I said about that. HeBhagawan 19:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Your most recent suggestion is not too objectionable, except for the "theistically inclined" part. There is no need to pigeonhole a certain category of people who hold this belief. Of course, you are correct that no athiests would hold that belief. There are, however, many theists who do not believe it, or at least who do not consider it important. HeBhagawan 19:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true at all. A theist believes there's a role for God in everything.

That separates a theist from an atheist. It's an opposite. I have cited numerous reference. You just be want to be a Hinduism-lite kind of person, believeing that Hinduism can include atheism, even if a tiny minority believe in that kind of view. You have not even cited a single reference to show that some merely believe in karma as a law of cause and effect in Hinduism. I have cited many. some is wrong.

Raj2004 19:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason why Hinduism is not a featured article is that people write nonsense without any citations and a tendency to assert that the smarta or liberal advaita view is the view of Hinduism. ask any madhva and he believes that only Vishnu can grant moksha. I don't hold that view but it should be reflected in Hinduism articles.

Raj2004 19:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I stand by what I said earlier Raj. Pedantry doesn't work for me (neither does insulting all the editors here by accusing them of writing 'nonsense'), and I don't think it works for an encyclopedia article. "some" works just fine, without the misleading individual references to specific sects that imply that all theists think the way you do.  Final answer. &#2384; Priyanath 19:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Raj, Please don't make personal attacks (eg "You just be want to be a Hinduism-lite kind of person"). Thank you. We can have a civil discussion.

I don't consider my personal beliefs important for the article, but, if you must know, I am very much a theist. "How can you be a theist and not want to mention God's role in karma," you ask? Here's how:

Suppose you ask 10 people--all theists--this question: "If you throw a rubber ball against a wall, what happens?"
 * 1) Most of them will respond, "the ball bounces back to me."
 * 2) Perhaps one will say, "With the intervention of God, the ball bounces back to me."

This does not mean that the other nine necessarily disbelieve that God had any role in the process. They probably believe that everything happens by the will of God. But they do not find it necessary to actually mention God's role in such an instance.

It is not really a matter of belief or disbelief, it is a matter of whether it is necessary to mention it explicitly. HeBhagawan 19:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perfect analogy, thanks. &#2384; Priyanath 19:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I was rude. we should have a civil discussion. But you did not cite any references. Bad analogy. Karma is not like bouncing ball. It's a major concept in Hinduism.

Raj2004 19:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I was being civil but I got frustated. Neither of you cited a single reference to support your point of view and I am now the bad guy??

Raj2004 19:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody called you a bad guy, Raj, and the thought didn't cross my mind either. We just disagree about how to present a minor (and complex) theological point in an encyclopedia article that's meant for a broad audience. Time for a short wikibreak, for me at least. &#2384; Priyanath 20:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Raj, You are a good guy. I can tell that you are trying to make the article better, and I agree with almost everything you have done. We just disagree on this one point, and even on that our opinions are not completely at odds.

I can present some references where the doctrine of karma is explained without mentioning anything about God dispensing the fruits. I actually have a lot of books from the library right now about Hinduism. But before I take the time to search through all these books, I would like to know whether such references would make any difference since I am not trying to disprove God's role in karma.

Remember, I am not trying to prove your belief wrong. Your belief exists in Hinduism. I admit that.

Therefore, there are 2 questions to answer:


 * 1) Is it so essential to a basic understanding of the religion that it should be mentioned in the main article considering the limited space?
 * 2) (If the answer to #1 is yes), How can we incorporate it so that it compliments, rather than interrupts the logical flow of the section into which it is inserted?

My answer to #1 is no. However, because you feel strongly about it, I agreed that we can mention it. This is a collaborative effort, so I am willing to accept things that I may not think are ideal.

So we go to question 2. My answer to #2 is to make the sentence short, simple, and to place it where I placed it before. It doesn't logically fit at the beginning of the section. If you put it there it confuses rather than clarifies what you are trying to teach.

HeBhagawan 20:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

One other thing: If you say "especially those who are theistically inclined," your reader is likely to say "huh?"

I believe that only one sentence in the whole article mentions atheists. While a small number of truely atheistic Hindus certainly exist, the article has not discussed them, so it seems strange to say "those who are theistically inclined" or even "theists," without explaining what the alternative is--which I don't think any of us want to get into. The way to avoid this pitfall is to simply leave such terminology out of it. HeBhagawan 20:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, guys when you mentioned a three revert rule, I felt like I was a bad guy. Thanks for the clarification. I would like you to cite references to support your point of view. (Not that I don't believe you. I believe you trust me but I wanted to show my references to show that I am not making things up. I still think theistically inclined is a good word as it does not discuss saivism or vaishnavism.

Raj2004 20:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Guys, I do want to appreciate your efforts in making the article on Hinduism better. I just disagreed on a minor point.

Raj2004 21:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Raj and HeBhagavan, Any objection from either of you to moving this entire discussion (cut and paste) over to Talk:Hinduism? It's more appropriate there so others can more obviously see this discussion. &#2384; Priyanath 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Priyanth, no objections on my part. Let other people contribute their thoughts. I have asked notable Hinduism article editors such as Rama's arrow, Bhadani and Gouranga UK to contribute. I want to hear their vies not just our views.

Raj2004 01:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I don't object to pasteing the entire discussion there-- if that's what you really want. However, think carefully before doing it. If we have this much trouble reconciling 3 different opinions, we might have an even harder time if many people are involved, each with their own opinions. The 3 people here are all reasonable, but on the main discussion page you get both reasonable and unreasonable people. The discussion of this single sentence could drag on for weeks as each person comes up with new ideas of what they would like to add to the section on karma (we actually went through a big debate over this recently--you can read it on the Hinduism discussion page. We seem to have almost resolved the issue on our own. So post it if you want, but only do it if you still think it is a good idea after considering what I have said. Thanks! HeBhagawan 03:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it here then. That's why I asked. Because this was more of a personal discussion at times, I was thinking it might be best to leave it anyway. &#2384; Priyanath 03:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment as a means to resolve a contents dispute/issue, I think y'all are doing good but veering off-course. The content on Wikipedia must strictly obey the norms of - WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS. When you want to resolve a content issue, stick to these fundamental policies. What these means is, don't rely on debates that involve mostly your own knowledge and interpretation - its good that you are working together, but Wikipedia does not care about what you intend/mean when you write things. List each others sources (which must be reliable) and insert data only based on these reliable sources. If you introduce your own views on the interpretation of karma, yoga, any concept, it is wrong. In a nutshell - if both parties can back up their data with WP:RS, then both should be inserted. No rival POV should be excluded (WP:NPOV). I hope thise helps - just stick to the fundamentals. Rama's arrow 04:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

More on the Divine Accountant
Raj, Here are a few of the citations you were asking for. Remember, I am not trying to disprove that God has a role in dispensing fruits of karma. I agree with you that this view exists in Hinduism. I am just trying to prove that many scholars and teachers--both Hindu and non-Hindu--explain the Hindu doctrine of karma without finding it helpful or necessary to mention anything about God being the dispenser/accountant. This indicates that while God may have a role, it is not essential to explain it. And if we do explain it (which I have agreed to do, so long as it is done in a way that doesn't harm clarity) it should be concise, universal, and positive, as Priya suggested.

Pratima Bowes, The Hindu Religious Tradition 54-80 (Allied Pub. 1976) ISBN 0-7100-8668

Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. II, at 217-225 (18th reprint 1995) ISBN 81-85301-75-1

Alex Michaels, Hinduism: Past and Present 154-56 (Princeton 1998) ISBN 0-691-08953-1

Each of the above books discusses the Hindu concept of Reincarnation without ever mentioning God in the capacity as a dispenser, accountant, giver of fruits of karma, etc.

Consider also the discussion of reincarnation in the Upanishads:

"Accordingly as one acts, according as one behaves, so does he become in the next life. The doer of good becomes good, the doer of evil becomes evil. One becomes virtuous by virtuous action, bad by bad action. Others, however, say that a person consists of desires.  As is his desire so is his will, as is his will so is the deed he does; whatever deed he does, that he attains. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 4.4.5, translated by Radhakrishnan)"

There is no mention here of God as the giver of fruits. It is all about cause and effect. So you see, it is quite possible to explain reincarnation in Hinduism with or without mentioning God as the dispenser of fruits. And if it is possible to explain it either way, then we should choose the shorter way, because the article is too long to add any more non-essential facts. But if you insist on mentioning it, let's do it nicely--and in a way that does not elevate one view over the other, becasue that would be POV. Thanks.

One other note: Raj, you have provided some good citations, but some of the websites you provided links to do not actually say what you cited them for. So it is not really fair to say that you have provided "many" citations for that view. There is no need to look for additional citations--I already agree with you that the view is a legitimate one--but I just wanted to point that out. HeBhagawan 04:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Gorounga has stated some good points, which is somewhere in between our views:


 * Hello Raj, it's obviously a somewhat complicated debate. You could quote Bhagavad Gita to promote the argument that Krishna is always aloof from the dealings of karma, and that it works instead based on the desires of the jivas:
 * "There is no work that affects Me; nor do I aspire for the fruits of action. One who understands this truth about Me also does not become entangled in the fruitive reactions of work." B-Gita 4.14 From Prabhupadas purport "He creates and remains aloof from the creation, whereas the living entities are entangled in the fruitive results of material activities because of their propensity for lording it over material resources. The proprietor of an establishment is not responsible for the right and wrong activities of the workers, but the workers are themselves responsible. The living entities are engaged in their respective activities of sense gratification, and these activities are not ordained by the Lord."
 * However, ultimately from this perspective the world of karma is still not entirely independent from Krishna (or Bhagavan if prefered) because it only exists as one of his energies. "The Lord fulfills his desire as he deserves: Man proposes and God disposes. The individual is not, therefore, omnipotent in fulfilling his desires. The Lord, however, can fulfill all desires, and the Lord, being neutral to everyone, does not interfere with the desires of the minute independent living entities." from B-Gita 5.15 p
 * Then later in the Gita, Krishna goes on to explain:
 * "I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him." B-Gita 9.29 and
 * "But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My transcendental form -- to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they have."B-Gita 9.22
 * So at least this particular understanding of the Bhagavad Gita promotes a view wherein although the Supreme being may be aloof from geting personally involved in standard 'karma', but if someone is worshipping Him in devotion with their heart, then He personally becomes involved. But then it is no longer an action of karma as I'd understand it, as any action on behalf of Krishna is always beyond karma. It is 'causeless' from the material perspective because it has no mundane origin, being fully transcendental.
 * Then in the eighteenth chapter you have:
 * "The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy" 18.61 - which could be used to summarise the argument. i.e the living jivas are on 'a machine' (yantra) within the world of samsara, but ultimately Krishna is the Supreme controller of this machine, so it's not entirely independent.
 * I hope this of some use in the debate, or the article. Best Wishes, ys, GourangaUK 12:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Raj, HeBhagavan, others, I've made changes and explained them at Talk:Hinduism. Let's please discuss there, reasonably and civilly, all changes that we make. &#2384; Priyanath 15:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject_Hinduism/Shri for WP:HINDU users
I nominated a few users who I feel are deserving of the award.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you too
Thanks for all your hard work too! Your problem-solving skills are good, as is your commitment to quality. HeBhagawan 12:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up: please help to keep an eye on Swadhyayee's edits. He has started to become active again after being away for a while. In the past I have spent a lot of time trying to dissuade him from making edits that clearly reduced the quality of the article becasue his edits were POV, factually dubious, uncited, and stylistically bad. I did not find him as easy to work with as Raj. He is very enthusiastic, and tends to make large-scale edits, but does not always have the same ideas about quality that some editors have.HeBhagawan 12:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Priyanth as a hard core theist, I believe that although there is free will, God has the power to mitigate bad karma. I have personally experienced the effects of chanting of Vishnu sahasranama in my own life. Yet, I recognize other beliefs so long as they can support their beliefs. My own personal view is that karma merely being a law of cause and effect does not square with an omnipotent God. But my views with citations should not alone count in an encylopedia. Raj2004 01:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Raj, my own view is very close to yours, really. I've seen the power of God and Guru's grace to mitigate karma in my own life. My personal belief is that God created the law of karma, so God is part and parcel of the law. But that we can appeal directly to the lawmaker him/herself for relief. I was only coming from the perspective of trying to make a really long article shorter, rather than from any disagreement with your understanding of God's very direct involvement in the law of karma. &#2384; Priyanath 01:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Priyanth

Raj2004 10:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ashauch.
You may be right in the available meanings of "Ashauch" but the logic behind is gloomy or joyous mood of people. How can anyone go to The God for Darshan with gloomy face? Would anyone like gloomy face but the fact is, today everyone's face is gloomy because of one or other problem. One may say that everyone is Shutaki every day. Hope you are aware that there is always two meanings 1) translation of word and 2) "Lakshik Arth" - "Lakshik" meaning. I think the logic behind Hinduism doctrines if projected would earn due reverence for Hinduism and mitigate allegations that Hinduism is superstitious. Can't help till the people do not want to apply mind to understand some concepts strange to them. Enough of dis-advantage is being taken of citation rule.Swadhyayee 04:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But 'inability to concentrate' is your own individual interpretation of that word. It is not popularly accepted, and is therefore not "Lakshik" either, unless you mean your very own personal "Lakshik". I appreciate your desire to change the literal and popular meaning of words to something more positive. It's a beautiful idea. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means that it must define words and principles based on the popularly accepted usages of those words. Citations and references are a part of that, just as they are with any encyclopedia. A personal website or message board is the more appropriate place to promote new and more personal meanings of words. Wikipedia really isn't the place for that, unfortunately, Swadhyayee. &#2384; Priyanath 04:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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"

Monasticism & mahaa-vaakyas
I have been very impressed by your judgement, so I want to ask your opinion on two things:

One reason I wanted to shorten the purushaarthas section was that I want to make room for one more section, consisting of just a few sentences and a "main article" redirect, on monasticism. While most Hindus are not monastics, monastics have had too much influence on the religion to ignore them altogether. I'll have to think about how to condense the most important points about monasticism into a few sentences. What do you think?

Secondly, what do you think about Gouranga's recent addition of yet another mahaa-vaakya? I left a message on his talk page asking him if he would mind me moving or deleting it. Here's what I said to him:

Hi Gouranga, Thank you for contributing to the discussion on the Hinduism page recently and for your edits to the article. 2 questions: Do you mind if I delete it? Or move it to a different place? Hare Krishna,
 * 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.

What is your opinion? Thanks!HeBhagawan 02:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * HeBhagavan, You know that for the sake of brevity, I am all for trimming down unnecessary additions - and that extra Gita quote I felt didn't add anything particularly new. You have my strong approval to delete it. Same goes for the additional information about the tilak and tulsi. That extra detailed information should go on the Tilak page, in my opinion. And this is coming from someone with a Tulsi plant (though not with a tulsi tilak). Suggestion - when deleting that one, move it to the Tilak page and say so in the edit comment - so it wasn't deleted, just 'moved'.


 * You've given much more thought to the Hinduism article than I am able to. I trust and respect your judgment, based on what I'm seeing you do there. You're doing a great job on every level. I think adding a section on monasticism would also be a good idea. Just as temples are a high-profile and meaningful part of Hinduism, so are the Swamis. The impact of Vivekananda, Yogananda, and others is significant. And the daily scene of wandering Swamis (whether true sadhus, or more of the street person type of swami) probably needs to be addressed. On a more personal level, I think most Hindus hearts are touched by seeing wandering sadhus, and many have wondered about giving their life over completely to the spiritual search in that way. So, I think monasticism is significant enough to have a section. &#2384; Priyanath 03:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any objection to me posting this on the Hinduism discussion page?HeBhagawan 04:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, Please read the Wikipedia Manual of Style at WP:MOS, especially Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_first-person_pronouns_and_one.
Swadhyayee, Please read the Wikipedia Manual of Style at WP:MOS, especially Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_first-person_pronouns_and_one. There are some very experienced editors here for those who are humble enough to accept advice. ॐ Priyanath 02:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Avoid first-person pronouns and one Wikipedia articles must not be based on one person’s opinions or experiences. Thus, “I” can never be used except, of course, when it appears in a quotation. For similar reasons, avoid the use of “we” and “one”. A sentence such as “We [or One] should note that some critics have argued in favor of the proposal” sounds more personal than encyclopedic.

Nevertheless, it is sometimes appropriate to use “we” or “one” when referring to an experience that anyone, any reader, would be expected to have, such as general perceptual experiences. For example, although it might be best to write, “When most people open their eyes, they see something”, it is still legitimate to write, “When we open our eyes, we see something”, and it is certainly better than using the passive voice: “When the eyes are opened, something is seen.”

In the above example, meaning do not change whereas meaning change when it is said that "we develop good tendencies" and "good tendencies are developed in us". When we consciously involve solely in actions to develop good tendencies, we can say, "we develop good tendencies" but when development of good tendencies are results of our certain actions carried out for other intentions, we have to say, "good tendencies are developed in us". While we cultivate, grass grows along due to watering. We say, "grass grows" and not "we grow grass". Similarly when we help someone, relations develop amongst us. We don't say, "we develop relations"; we say "relations developed amongst us as we helped each other". When we say, "we develop relations" it means that our help was aimed at developing relations.

Swadhyayee 07:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, that the previous version sounded a bit awkward. But that exception at WP:MOS to avoiding 'we' doesn't apply here. Far better than either approach would be to say 'people develop good tendencies' and not 'we'. So I changed it to something that neither you or HeBhagavan have supported yet, but is supported by Wikipedia style. &#2384; Priyanath 15:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh Priyanath!

I am sorry, I never noticed the change. It's fine. You placed this message on your talk page. My feeling is we must all learn more and more things out of these contributions for which we devote lot of time. I try to project what I feel is more suitable. If accepted well otherwise I feel satisfied having given my views except when Hindu doctrines are either wrongly or poorly projected. This article will be viewed by number of people for number of years, better the connotations better the understanding about Hinduism in the minds of people all over the world. Better the understanding for Hindus, better the support to Hindus by world communities. I think, I may be stratching the things too far but today the element of suspicion is growing amongst Westerners and Muslims. Americans are not in position to distinguish between Indian Hindu and Muslims. Indians/Hindus are intimidated thinking they are Muslims. If one Westerner understand Hinduism, over a period of time there will be geometrical growth of understanding about Hinduism. This will help in harmonius societies of Westerners/Christains and Hindus. My earnest request to you would be to focus on providing better connotations over getting FAC or personal rise to admin and so on. Hope I will get justice from you and HeBhagawan henceforth. Namoshivay. Swadhyayee 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Priyanath, should it be mind or minds?
The doctrine of karma includes the law of cause and effect. It states that everything that people do leaves an impression in their mind, which determines what kind Swadhyayee 16:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it should be minds. Can you change it? Thanks for pointing that out. &#2384; Priyanath 16:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)