Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) at 04:49, 14 February 2013 (→Re-ordering of the article: Typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hinduism: Philosophy Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Stub

Yes I know its a stub, I still have a lot of work to do.......Tony.--Aoclery 22:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of links

Deleting links as a link-farm. I am not sure there isn't some Ahamkara in these deletions...Convince me it isn't prejudice or inappropriate..........--24.207.41.230 18:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Tony O'Clery.

I have reinserted the link to the GThomas for it is another treatment of Advaita from a Gnostic Christian view, which well could have originated in India. It is not self promotion as there doesn't seem to be any other treatments of GThomas according to Vedanta. Also the purports were added to an already existing text. So please don't interfere with things that you obviously do not understand. User:Aoclery|Aoclery]] 21:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Tony O'Clery

I have reinstated the links as they are most appropriate to the article for they are the main authors and philosophers in this subject. Anyone who would say they have no relevance to the article doesn't understand Ajativada and where it came from and who taught it..--Aoclery 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Tony O'Clery.

I deleted some external links and listed each reason in the edit summary. The link to the gnostic gospel seems to be original research. Perhaps if there are articles about the relationship between the gnostic gospels and AV, in published journals, then we can use those. Also, I think that a link to a message in a yahoo forum does not meet WP:EL.

Feel free to discuss this with me on my talk page or here.TheRingess 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The treatment of the GThomas is only in relation to the interpretation to Vedantic Non Dual Philosophy. The translations were not original just the commentary. There would be no other as far as I know..--Aoclery 23:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Tony O'Clery.

It probably counts as original research and we can't link to it.TheRingess 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words are hardly avoidable in discussing mysticism...........However whoever put that notice there may take time out and explain to me how weasel words are verifiable in Ajativada or forever hold his peace.............Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for specific citations

Hello, I am trying to determine if the term ajātivāda is primarily used by one or more of the specific modern authors mentioned in the article or if it has a prior use in traditional Indian philosophy as is implied in the article. There are no footnotes giving citations to any classical texts. The adjective ajāti (अजाति) can mean "eternal, not produced" (Apte, p. 23), as well as some other things such as not having a specific caste membership. I am unable to find the word used as a technical term in traditional Indian philosophy. The article cites verse 426 of Viveka Chudamani and gives a translation but does not cite the source. The translation of that verse in the Turiyananda editon (p. 195) is very different, and the Sanskrit text does not use the term ajāti or have any obvious connection to the point being made in the article. Since the citation has no reference I think it should be cut pending clarification of what the relevance is. The Mandukyakarika is cited but with no line number, so the citation cannot be verified. Can someone supply a line number? Buddhipriya (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC).

RAMANA MAHARSHI IN 'BE AS YOU ARE' BY DAVID GODMAN.Arkana 1981..WHERE HE MENTIONS AJATIVADA SHOULD BE ENOUGH FOR ANYBODY..pp 181-3, 184..TONY.

Re-ordering of the article

I've re-ordered the article:

• Topical arrangement + subheaders
• Etymology-section
• Additional sources
• Changed references to proper references
• Removed some WP:OR, c.q Shankara and Para-Advaita. Paradvaita is onlymentioned in connection to Kashmir Shaivism.

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Johnathon

Do yourself a favour and read and digest it first and also see if you can grasp what it really means ajativada...only 1 in 10 million can according to Maharaj...Tony. I may have more time than you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 20:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Kashmir shaivitism is not ajativada it is maybe advaita, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony. It's clear that this page is dear to you. But... Misplaced Pages does not acknowledge "ownership" of pages per WP:OWN. Also, Misplaced Pages asks for reliable sources per WP:RS. Simply removing tags, without providing sources, is not acceptable. "Paraadvaita" surely needs a source; as far as I can see it's a Shaivist term (which may not be that strange, given the syncretism of Indian religions). I will undo most of your edits, following WP:RS. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Start-Class Hinduism articles
• Low-importance Hinduism articles
• Start-Class Hindu philosophy articles
• Low-importance Hindu philosophy articles