Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:56, 6 January 2013

This is Abhidevananda's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Re: PROUT tags

Hi Abhidev, the {{oldafd}} tags make no sense in an archive page, because the archive was never nominated for deletion ... the article was. An article's nomination for deletion is as much a part of its history as a good article or featured article nomination. Take it as a badge of pride that you've managed to improve the article dramatically, proving the !delete voters wrong. Graham87 04:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that badge of pride argument works well here. Rather, I think that this particular tag only comes across as humiliating for both PROUT and Misplaced Pages. That is why I expressed the opinion that when a nomination for deletion fails, the tag should simply be removed. This seems to be consistent with universally recognized principles of justice. If the tag must be maintained (as you claim), then at least it should be archived once the article to which it applied no longer exists.

Similarly, your argument that an archived talk page was not nominated for deletion is not convincing to me, because it was also not the unarchived talk page of the article that was nominated for deletion but rather the article itself. Yet that tag only appeared on the talk page and not on the article itself. So I think that even if that tag is archived, everyone would understand that the nomination for deletion was not for the archived talk page but rather for the article that existed at the time (5.5 years ago). --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal, I guess, though it's highly non-standard. There are a few other examples out there, but not that many. The article and the AFD should be linked in some way, though. I'm going to move the AFD back to the archive. Graham87 07:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Graham. I also agree with you that it is not "that big a deal". If you had replied that there is some important principle here, I would have just deferred to your greater experience. I guess one of the things that irked me the most here was that the nomination for deletion somehow seemed to influence or be influenced by the assignment of the Politics portal of "Low" importance to the PROUT article. Frankly, I cannot conceive how capitalism gets a rating of High importance on the Politics portal, whereas PROUT gets a rating of Low importance. To the best of my knowledge, capitalism has no fixed policy on the subject of politics. Capitalism is essentially an economic theory, largely based on the pseudoreligious notion of a "sacred" right to private property. To the best of my knowledge, capitalism has no fixed guidelines or insights in respect to government or politics. At most we can say that capitalists tend to prefer political democracy. In contrast, PROUT has much more direct input on the subject of politics (see, for example, the sections of the article on Administration, Democracy, Prama, Sadvipras, and World government). In this light, I find it rather astounding that the Politics portal would assign PROUT only "Low" importance... even after upgrading the quality scale from Start to B class (which rating I can completely understand and appreciate). So, please pardon me if I have been somewhat prickly about that nomination for deletion tag. It just seemed to limit the scope of the Politics portal to assign a more reasonable level of importance to the article. Anyway, Graham, thanks for being so reasonable. I really appreciate it. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Friction between capitalism and communism caused one of the defining conflicts of the 20th century. For that reason, plus the fact that capitalist philosophies underpin the political and economic systems of many countries around the world, there is no doubt in my mind that it should be rated top importance in the politics WikiProject. Don't take an article being marked as low importance personally; most articles in big WikiProjects are marked as such. Check out Category:Politics articles by importance or swing through the subcategories in Category:Articles by importance. Graham87 15:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Graham, I understand your point about capitalism, and maybe from that perspective it becomes high or top importance. But regarding the articles that are rated as of low importance, none of the ones I saw came even close to the breadth and scope of PROUT. Unlike PROUT, they mostly address very specific and limited topics. I don't believe that it makes sense to place PROUT on a par with Talk:Abortion Opponents' List, Talk:Abraham Lincoln's Peoria speech, Talk:Joan Abrahamson, Talk:Absolutely Absurd Party, and so on.--Abhidevananda (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The importance rating assigned by a WikiProject has nothing to do with the bredth or scope of an article; it is about how influencial its topic is within that subject area. PROUT does not seem to have had much influence in the political sphere, unless you know otherwise; if it had as much clout as the topics in Category:Mid-importance politics articles, nobody would have dreamed of nominating the article about it for deletion. It could probably also be added to other projects, like WikiProject India and WikiProject hilosophy – just use the same syntax as the politics banner, substituting the word politics for "India" or "Philosophy", respectively. Graham87 04:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand, Graham. The Politics portal of Misplaced Pages would have assigned Low importance to Marxism until after the Communist revolution in Russia. Thanks for the clarification. Let me see if the Economics portal is equally retrospective in outlook.--Abhidevananda (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposals for deletion

The following articles have been proposed for deletion: "A Guide to Human Conduct"-Discussion for deletion, "Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies"-Discussion for deletion together with "Life And Philosophy Of Swami Vivekananda"-Discussion for deletion and "Swami Vivekananda: Messiah of Resurgent India"-Discussion for deletion written by Tito. Take a look. If you can add something more to improve the articles (links, quotations etc.). Only a comment by the way: sometimes our work on WP seems the struggle of Milarepa in doing the walls for Marpa... with a fight that seems to increase its movement towards a psychic dimension. :) Anyway "karmany eva ‘dhikaras te ma phalesu kadacana".--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can edit an article, and anyone can nominate a page for deletion. Obviously, there are pros and cons to such an arrangement. But so far WP seems to have tipped heavily on the pro side. So, though I am still relatively new to Misplaced Pages, I don't believe that any of these WP pages will be deleted. I don't see any good reason for that to happen. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes Abhidev. You are relatively new on WP (me too) but it seems you have a wide experience on Sarkar's literature and this is very helpful for us! If you find something to add/rectify in the new articles on Sarkar/Anandamurtijii's books articles please do it. I've to go offline now.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Cornelius, please note that this is my Talk page. It is not a Misplaced Pages article. You appear to be someone who considers himself/herself to be a margii. Hence, when you write to me on my Talk page, please observe reasonable decorum for a margii. In other words, kindly refer to Gurudeva with more respectful language, and kindly address me in an appropriate manner.

On another but related topic, in about a week I expect to be in a more convenient place for uploading authorized images to Wikimedia. I would appreciate your help with the book covers and perhaps some other images. It would be easiest to carry this out offline, that is, by email. If that is acceptable to you, please send me an email. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it was not my intention to offend or to disrespect anyone. My intention was good and I can demonstrate this to you on a personal communication if you prefer. The talk pages on WP are not private but public and the language used is sometimes very different for many reasons, and the first is that no one knows who the other really is (not in this case: you declare who you are). It's an ordinary habit in WP not to address anyone with his/her real name or title. I use to communicate with people that on a personal communication I will address with "Mister" or with his/her right title using the appropriate social code, deference etc. Since from my first steps on WP I learned that the style of communication is different and very cold and direct 'couse the attention of all is centred on the "substance". Sometimes I find this really embarrassing 'couse this is out of my personal education, but in WP the rule seems to work differently. I found an e-mail address of you on nzbking.com. If you want I can better explain this to you at this address. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, write to me. Regarding this Talk page, to some extent, the rules are mine. And I am not writing under an alias. Tito is not writing under an alias. And you - well, alias or not - you can refer to Baba with suitable language when talking to me on this page. I will not pretend that I do not have the utmost respect for my Guru. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok Dadajii. In ten minutes you will have my personal answer on your mail.--Cornelius383 (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Time

I was reading the religious concepts and opinions section in one my most favourite Misplaced Pages article Time. Parabhat Ranjan Sarkar told, the entire universe exists within the cosmic mind, which itself is the first expression of consciousness coming under the bondage of its own nature. Did he say anything else on the nature etc of "Time"? --Tito Dutta (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In several places, Baba defines time as a "mental measurement of the motivity of action". For example, in "The Omni-Reflective Cognitive Consciousness" (1971) found in Subhasita Samgraha Part 10, we find:

While trying to discover the original cause of creation human beings thought that it must be eternal tempos. But when intellect developed they discovered that hypothesis to be incorrect, because time is nothing but the mental measurement of the motivity of action. If there is no action, there is no question of any measurement of time. If the moon does not move around the earth, no question of days, months or years can arise. Hence time is not the original cause.

--Abhidevananda (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

More specifically: Isaac Newton felt, ""times" persist like frames of a film strip", that meant "past" or any other moment of time parallely exist somewhere (the way different places exist). Parallel existence of different moments of time means, I am typing currently– this moment exists. And the moment I posted "Welcome" message at your talk page, that moment also exists somewhere (in that moment, I am still typing the the "Welcome" message.) It is similar for ALL other moments. I am being born somewhere, I am growing up somewhere... I am joining Misplaced Pages somewhere etc. And from here, comes the concept of Time loop.

Did Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar say anything on this parallel existence of time? I am highly interested to learn this, because if parallel existence of different moments exist side by side like a film strip, then concept of motion of time or time passes/moves etc are incorrect. It is not the "motion" of time then. It might be the motion of something else– what Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar called: the entire universe exists within the cosmic mind? -Tito Dutta (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing like a continuous flow of time, and hence there is nothing like eternity. Time is a relative factor. It is a collection of fragments (if you like, "frames in a film strip", though there are many strips and there can be gaps in any of them). As a relative factor, time depends on space and form, changing accordingly. If the earth were viewed from a distant galaxy, Krsna might not have been born yet.

There is nothing like Eternity, because what we call Eternity is a collection of numerous fragments of time. The concept of fragments of time arises in the human brain. Suppose a person becomes senseless at twelve o’clock. When that person regains senses after five hours, he thinks that it is still twelve o’clock. During the period of senselessness his mind was not able to measure the motivity of action, and hence time ceased to exist. ("Relativity and the Supreme Entity", 1971, Published in Subhasita Samgraha Part 10)

Even cosmic mind (in its complete form) is relative. Philosophically, the source of all being, the supreme causal entity, can only be Parama Brahma (often referred to by many other names, for example, Paramatma, Parama Purusa, or Purusottama). --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So what is "past" or "future" from this point of view? --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unlike the Vedantic philosophy that teaches Brahma satyam jagat mithya (Brahma is absolute truth; the world is a lie), Baba asserted Brahma satyam jagat satyam apeksikam (Brahma is absolute truth; the world is relative truth). With respect to the manifest universe, everything is constantly changing in accordance with three factors of relativity, known in Samskrta as deshakalapatra. Kala means time. Kala has three dimensions: past, present, future. But those three dimensions operate only in relation to desha and patra. The past is only meaningful when considered in the context of space and form. What is past for one person on planet earth may still be the future for another person on the moon. Due to astronomical factors (primarily the rotation of the earth relative to the sun and the moon), New Years Day... by the way, happy new year... began in Australia before it began in India. --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Have removed

have removed the nomination, nice to know you . Shrikanthv (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposals for deletion

Abhidevanandaji the following articles have been proposed for deletion: "Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3)"-Discussion for deletion and "Neohumanism in a Nutshell"-Discussion for deletion. I'm still working on the last one, anyway I will try to find more references/sources for both. Please if it's possible for you take a look at the articles (maybe you have something to add or correct..). I hope all is ok with you journey. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)