User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/Januar 2005 2

Hi Sam, sorry to trouble you...

but I have a query about a page that I was trying to sort out, and you had mentioned that I could contact you if I was having any problems with my editing etc...

I did a search for 'Damocles' sword' which I think some people may search for, however it didn't exist, there was no reference at all. I did a Google search of Wikipedia and discovered that it was under a seperate title:

Sword of Damocles

At this url: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_Damocles&redirect=no

which then links to the true article:

Damocles

At this url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles

I created a new page for 'Damocles sword' at this url

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles%27_sword

But I do not know how to link it to the original article as somebody did with the Sword of Damocles.

Thank you in advance for your help

Best Regards

Ian R. Godfrey

User:IanG (sig added by Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 14:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Firstly, to sign your name, type 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Now, on to your question. Good question! Thankfully its one I know how to answer! ;) The simple answer is to edit the new page, and type nothing but:

#REDIRECT [[]]

Inside of the bars, type the name of the page you want it to redirect to, such as:

#REDIRECT [[Damocles]]

If you confused, have a look at Wikipedia:Redirect, and/or Wikipedia:Boilerplate text, and if all else fails, come back and let me know ;) Cheers, Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 14:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, I just want to thank you fort the links. You can erase that after reading. IonBidon (talk · contribs)

Logarithmic timeline

I've created Logarithmic timeline/New version, which takes into account some of the criticisms from the talk page and includes a introduction to the concept. I'd be grateful if you could comment on it, so I can see whether there's consensus or not for this to become the accepted version. Thanks. G Rutter 10:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sig

Your Welcome message (or rather series of messages) suggests signing everything, but I note that nobody signs articles, only help queries. Maynard Hogg (sig added by Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 00:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC))

You are correct sir. We don't sign in the articles, only in talk pages. The page history does shows who does what, however. Have a look at Wikipedia:Talk page. Cheers, Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 00:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chip Berlet

Thanks for your help with this article, Sam. You definitely improved it. Best, SlimVirgin 05:44, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Antiglobalization and NPOV

I'm writing to you because I found your welcome message on my page and I don't know exactly what should I do. I ask sorry if my English is not perfect, I used to write on the Italian page but recently I made some editing on the English version, in most cases without logging in (but on talk pages I've often put my signature juliet.p). I have a NPOV dispute with User:TDC on the article antiglobalization. He created the paragraph Charges of antisemitism in that article. I found it extremely biased against the antiglobalization movement, so I changed it, without eliminating his photo or his quotation of Bové (I eliminated a sentence about an alleged antisemitic attack in Italy because I've never heard about it and he hasn't given any reference on the talk page). I explained all my objections on the relative talk page, even citing some links on the subject. Well, he erased my version and replaced his paragraph without any change. I replaced my version, explaining that I was unwilling to do so but since he had neither answered my objections on the talk page, neither kept my addictions (I had put a link with an article written by Naomi Klein about antisemitism and the antiglobalization movement) I felt authorised. He replaced again his version and accused me to have censored him (false). What should I do? Help me please!--Juliet.p 12:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is called an Edit war. I will be glad to help. Please understand thatyou have other options as well, see Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. I'll look into things, cheers, Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 12:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!--Juliet.p 13:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nazi mysticism

Hi Sam, i just saw your interwiki-link from Nazi mysticism to de:Ariosophie. I'm not that sure, that this fits. While the english article gives an overview over various "mystic" nazi movements, "Ariosophie" is only a single theory out of a whole bunch of theories. There's no 1:1 relationship between both articles. I'm afraid, that linking in this case might cause more confusion than understanding. Or what do you think? Kind regards --Zinnmann 22:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is no separate Ariosophie article on the english wiki, the Nazi mysticism article rolls all of that subject matter together. until separate articles are made for ariosophie and other specific sects, or until the german wiki creates a Nazi mysticism article, I think this is the best way for a reader to gain access to info on the subject. I have translated and merged essentially all of the content from the german Ariosophie into the Nazi mysticism article, BTW. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 22:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ISKCON and karma in Hinduism

Sam, I made more changes to Ishta deva. Also I made more changes to Karma in Hinduism. I added this sentence, "There's an elegant passage from Swami Sivananda's translation of the Svetasvatara Upanishad (4:6) illustrating that relationship: Two birds of beautiful plummage who are inseparable friends, dwell upon one and the same tree. Of these two the one eats the sweet fruit while the other looks on without eating. In his commentary, the two birds represent the individual soul and Brahman or God. The soul is a reflection essentially of Brahman. The tree represents the body and the soul identifies himself with the body and reaps the fruits of his actions and takes rebirths while the Lord alone stands a eternal witness, ever contented, and does not eat for He is the director of both the eater and the thing eaten." Raj2004 12:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on ISKCON (Jehovah's witnesses, etc.) I have incorporated your comments in the ISKCON article and ista deva article. Raj2004 14:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like your allegory, of the birds. As far as new religious movements, caution is important. The often contain a charismatic leader. If this man is a good man, who loves God, than their new religion is a blessing, and should be respected. But often he is not; he is instead a malevolent tyrant. There are certain key signs of a cult, or bad religion. One is that they want you apart from your family, and prevent you from seeing friends. Another is when they restrict your diet in unhealthful ways. Vegetarianism is fine, but you must have protein (beans, etc...). A common technique is to isolate a new member from the outside world, shower him with attention, and feed him only vegetables and fruits w no protein. This causes a person to become weak and have trouble thinking. He will be very agreeable after maintaining this diet. It is a brainwashing technique. This is a good link [1]. It is important to note that cults are always exclusionist religions, believing they are the only path to God. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 18:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

THanks, Sam for your comments. Thanks for your compliment. I didn't write the allegory about the birds; that's an exact quote from the eternal Svestwara Upanishads!!! The commentary is by Swami Sivananda, and Advaita follower. You are absolutely right about cults! Raj2004 11:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Brahmanism and Smartism

Brahmanism is Smartism. Just as Hinduism is a western term and santhana dharma is what Hindus call their religion. Brahmanism is a western term while smarta is the hindu term. Perhaps you can write a note about that in pantheism so it doesn't appear redundant. Thanks, Raj2004 15:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) 14:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004

Unfortunately we don't agree. I can't find any information suggesting the two terms are at all identical. Some consider Brahminism it be very broad, containing most forms of Hinduism, smarta included. Others feel Brahminism is the focus on Brahman alone, such as vaidikas. This link [2] is of the former view, and while it is rather abrasive, and not agreeable to either of our positions, it at minimum displays the controvercies involved. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 15:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sam, that is not a credible source. The site states lot of questionable information just as stating shaivism is a dravidian religion and smartism. It also classifies Smartism as a Vaishnavite sect. http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/hindutwa/htv000/bra_reld.html That ls not true; smartism states that every form of God is equivalent and it's up to the individual devotee. A smarta can instead worship siva as ista deva. Smartism, incorporates Brahmanism and adheres to Advaita philosopy. THe Ultimate reality is Brahman which can never be defined. However, through Maya, Brahman appears as Saguna Brahman, God with form, typically as Vishnu or Shiva. Lord Krishna said in the Gita worship of the absolute unmanifest is difficult for an ordinary person. I believe it is the same, although it would be better to state that Brahmism exclusivly focus on worship on the impersonal absolute while Smartism incorporates both beliefs. If it is possible to get a credible site, that would be great. Raj2004 16:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004

It seems Smartism is the same as Brahmanism. Please see the definition of Smartism from a respected book, Dancing with Siva: "Smartism: (Sanskrit) Sect based on the secondary scriptures (smriti). The most liberal of the four major Hindu denominations, an ancient Vedic brahminical tradition (ca 700 bce) which from the 9th century onward was guided and deeply influenced by the Advaita Vedanta teachings of the reformist Adi Shankara. Its adherents rely mainly on the classical smriti literature, especially the Itihasas (Ramayana and Mahabharata, the latter of which includes the Bhagavad Gita), Puranas and Dharma Shastras. These are regarded as complementary to and a means to understanding the Vedas. Smartas adhere to Shankara's view that all Gods are but various depictions of Saguna Brahman. Thus, Smartas are avowedly eclectic, worshiping all the Gods and discouraging sectarianism." from http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/lexicon/s.html The ancient quote suggest Brahmanism. Raj2004 18:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004

Oh yes, please don't misunderstand; I was not suggesting that Smartism was not founded by Brahmins, and didn't mean to invoke Brahmins as a caste. Rather I was using the term in reference to worship of the absolute directly, as Brahman.

I apologize for the websites failings, and will continue searching for a better site. I understood that the site was offensive and inaccurate, but I used it to illustrate the wide range of different opinions, by including one that neither of us held

We essentially agree, you understand that worship of the absolute is different than the worship of an avatar, incarnation, or other such spiritual entity. The problem is how we discuss both Brahmanism and smartism on the Pantheism page. I admit to not being as knowledgeable on these specific denominations of Hinduism, but I do know a good bit about pantheism, and it is the focus on, and worship of the absolute, not any individual Ishta-Deva. I think I must read the Hinduism article more closely, since I am not finding good articles discussing this on google. Thank you for your kind wisdom and attentions, Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 19:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I am not stating that smartism was necessarily brahmin-oriented. It believes in worshipping the Absolute like Brahmanism but recognizes the masses but stating Saguna Brahman is a particular manifestion of Brahman. (i.e., with form] Adi Sankara recognized few could do pray to the Absolute because humans are sensory beings but recognized the need to concentrate on God with form. Brahmanism seems to be an outdated western term and in some case, may be offensive; some people credit it being the religion of the Brahmins, coincidently and some disdain the Brahmins as the dalit site does. I still think Smartism does not have the negative connotations of Brahmanism. Raj2004 19:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004

I agree. Most of the things I was describing as "brahminism" could also have been called Arya Samaj, or Vaidika, but Brahmanism is the term I am most familiar with, admittedly from antiquated sources. However there remains the Pantheism article, and the need for it to focus on worship of Brahman, rather than Ishta-Devas. Anything other than the ground of being, sum total of existence, the absolute infinite, is not necessarily pantheist in its nature. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sam. see great discussion of Advaita in http://www.dlshq.org/download/hinduismbk.htm#_VPID_94 This is Brahmanism. Raj2004

That's not true. In Advaita theology as stated in sivananda's book about hinduism, above site, there is no difference between the Absolute (nirguna Brahman) and saguna brahman (ista devas) so pantheism/panenthism is still an essential part. Advaita is broader as it recognized those who worship the Absolute and those who worship ista devas and states both are the same. the great saint, Ramakrishna tried both and also came to same conclusion. Ramakrishna said the same thing: Has God any form? Or is He formless? God is both with and without form and yet transcends both. He alone can say what else He is. God with form and God without form are like ice and water. When water freezes into ice it has form. When the same ice is melted into water, all form is lost. God with form and without form are not two different beings. He who is with form is also without form. To a devotee, the worshiper of a Personal God, He manifests Himself in various forms. Just think of a shoreless ocean -- an infinite expanse of water-no land visible in any direction; only here and there are visible blocks of ice formed by intense cold. Similarly under the intensifying influence of the deep devotion of His worshiper, the Infinite reduces Himself, as it were, into the Finite and appears before him as a Being with form. Again, as on the appearance of the sun the ice melts away, so with the awakening of Knowledge, God with form melts away into the Formless. The water of the ocean, when viewed from a distance, appears to have a dark blue color, but becomes colorless when taken in the hand; in the same way God is also associated with a definite color and complexion from a distance, but He is the attributeless Truth when the devotee merges in Him." Raj2004

That is pantheism, or panentheism. Worship of a single aspect of God is not in and of itself, however. God is manifest in all things, indeed he is the very foundation of existance. Worship of a singular aspect, a murti or Ishta-Deva, an avatar or guru or etc..., is very different from worship him in his entirety, both as what is manifest, and what has been or will be manifested, the absolute infinite.

In the example of a prism, with the different shades of light being the Ishta-Devas, God would be the light, the prism, and everything else, both the past and the future.

I like this link very much BTW, thank you. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 20:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No Sam, Advaita states that the Absolute and Saguna Brahman (ista deva) are the same. (ice and water analogy) water and ice are the same. sorry for the confusion. so it is a little broader than panetheism. example, Vishnu is named the All Pervading One as He pervades everything; same as the Absolute. Hope this helps. Raj2004

What is the Ishta-Deva of Arya Samaj? Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 21:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sam, as a rule, and from my understanding, the Arya samaj only worships the Upanishadic Nirguna Brahman. Hence, they stress Vedic prayers that are devoid of attributes of God, such as the Gayatri mantra, etc. See for example, http://www.aryasamajhouston.com/invo_docs/shanti.html abd http://www.aryasamajhouston.com/invo_docs/shanti.html They don't have an Ista deva as Ista deva means more of a personal God, especially with form. I could be wrong. Although Arya Samaj may have appeal in the west, as for Hindus are concerned, they didn't have impact on Hindu society as Ramakrishna of Vedanta Society did. Ramakrishna is the greatest Hindu theologian since Sankara and did much to revalitize Hinduism to its Upanishadic roots. His goal was Smartic in character. He recognized few could worship the abstract Upanishadic Brahman which was one form of worship he recognized equally. At same time, he recognized Ista deva as an equally valid form of worship. I don't have IM messenger. Advaita or Smarta is broader. It includes panentheism but states worshipping the Absolute like the Arya Samaj is fine as well as more theistic personal devotional worship of Vishnu or Shiva. The Absolute is like water, vast but can crunch up to ice for the grace of the embodied human devotee. But the Absolute and ista deva aren't different. They are the same, just viewed from a different perspective. Raj2004 11:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004

In other words, Arya Samaj is limited in that it recognizes the Upanishadic Brahman and panentheism. Advaita and Smarta, the faith which incorporated Advaita, popularily known as Vedanta in the West, states both are equal. It states that the panentheistic Upanishadic Brahman and the panentheistic theistic formful God such as Vishnu or Shiva are the one and the same. The Upanishadic Brahman formless is analogized to water and ice (God with form) is analogized to theistic worship. So it's broader than Arya Samaj. I think Brahmanism is the same as Smartism. Smartism is the proper Hindu term.

Raj2004 12:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004

However, the major debate between Advaita and more theistic schools is the nature of Brahman. Advaita, like the contemporary Arya Samaj, stated that the Ultimate Reality is the formless Absolute. However, probably unlike Arya Samaj, Advaita recognized a formful God. Advaita recognized that only through Maya, the nirguna Upanishadic Brahman becomes the personal God with form. Arya Samaj, in my opinion, had minimal impact on modern Hinduism but agreed with Advaita in that that the ultimate nature, of Brahman was the formless Absolute. The more theistic schools such as Dvaita hated this but agreed in that the personal God and the formless Absolute are one and the same but however, believed that the ultimate nature of Brahman was a personal God. That's the difference. Hope this helps. Raj2004 12:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004

A good site comparing differences between Advaita and the more theistic schools are: 1) http://www.nalanda.demon.co.uk/vedanta.htm#The%20Theist%20Revolt

Sankara progated the Advaita school. 2) http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/madhva.htm#Madhva%20and%20Sankara

Raj2004 13:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004

Arya Samaj narrower than Smartism which considers worship of the Asbolute equivalent to worship of formful God; Arya Samaj worships the Absolute only

Arya Samaj Beliefs The Use of Murti (icon) Worship

The Arya Samaj "rejects [idolatry] entirely, not only as a harmless error, but as a positive sin". This is so in that there is only one God, but that God takes on an infinite number of forms.

According to this position, worship of God consists in 3 acts:

a) the first and foremost is to study the Vedas, with the motivation to acquire knowledge of God.

b) the observance of Dharma (moral duty and action) as prescribed by God in the Vedas.

c) worship of God by fire or the homa-sacrifice, this involves the use of the Gayatri Mantra.

In addition to the rejection of murti worship, the Arya Samaj rejects the avatars of Hinduism and of the Christian incarnation. How is one follow in the footsteps of God (Jesus or Rama), we are simply human ? Most of all is the rejection of the harmful and factless stories of the Puranas which perpetuates itself as the truth (i.e. the stories of Krishna having thousands of Gopis as wives). Caste

With respect to caste, it is the total rejection as it is now known. This is the say. it is not a natural account of a human's life nor as a truth from God. It is simply a means to organise society. Caste is formed only by one's character and not by birth (see the story of Stayakama in the Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka- Upanishads). How can a coward be born as a Ksatriya or a person who has no knowledge of the Vedas as a Brahman ?

Swami Dayanand fought against the soul repression that caste wrought upon the Indian people. As a result of repressive Mughal rule, caste became solidified in order to protect Hindu-Dharma. Now, caste totally needs to be changed and everyone must be treated equally and given the right to study the from the Vedas. The Vedas

The Vedas were created by God as prior to the creation of the universe and given to the ancient rishis. It contains all the fixed truths of the universe, the True Knowledge. Such laws are unchangeable (i.e. Karma, Dharma and Physical laws), they are not of the changeable type (i.e. this webpage has the colour 'x').

The problem that arises is that Vedic Sanskrit is radically different from Classical and Epic Sanskrit, the result has been many misinterpretations by Western scholars. For example, "Ashva" means "horse" and "grain". Sacrifices which call for "Ashva" were assumed to be for horses but the correct Vedic interpretation is that of "grain". The point being is that Vedic Sanskrit must be read in respect to the Vedic context. Beliefs

a) The Arya Samaj does not believe in the infallibility or immunity from mistakes. To err is to be human.

b) The only appropriate forms of worship are that of the fire (havan).

c) The Arya Samaj believes in the Law of Karma. This is the truth that "acts must follow by their consequences, that the result of actions cannot be warded off or atoned by any means". This is in connection with the theory of reincarnation.

d) The Arya Samaj does not believe in "Fate". Those born in a lowly position are not condemned to live a life of despair. It is the soul system that has degraded people to punish them for the positions of the rich and powerful.

e) Everyone can make and unmake his or her destiny through the Law of Karma.

f) The Vedas are infallible and expects every woman and man to know them and to expound them for the benefits of others. Raj2004 16:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004

Brahmanism and Smartism 2

Sam, I have left sevearl comments on Smartism. see above

Smartism considers worship of the formless Upanishadic Brahman and formful theistic formful God are the same. Recognized that the Ultimate Nature of Brahman is formless.

Does Brahminsim recognize this?

Arya samaj only worship the formless Upanishadic Brahman, I think. perhaps not as broad as Smartism which incorporates Advaita philosophy.

Raj2004 13:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004

Wow, thank you so much for all the wonderful information! You are a very good friend indeed, to volunteer so much time and work to helping me to learn about this. I am very much considering visiting an arya samaj temple, but first I want to learn a bit more particularly about havan. Thank you again for your words they are much appreciated! God be with you, Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 17:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, note even the theistic faiths state God is without form. Nirguna Brahman in Saivism is Parasiva and in Vaishnavism is Mahavishnu. Raj2004 19:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004 Theistic version of Brahman: For example, Narada-Pancharatra says: "Everything from Brahman to a blade of grass is Lord Krishna." This corresponds to the Upanishadic declaration: "All this is, verily, Brahman—Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma." from http://www.dlshq.org/religions/agamas.htm Raj2004 19:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004

Vedanta Society, Germany

A society that can help you with teachings of Ramakrishna and Advaita philosophy is:

GERMANY Steinebach/Sieg Vedanta Gesellschaft Bindweide 2, 57520 Steinebach/Sieg, Germany Phone: 49-2747-930493 Fax: 49-2747-930494 Email: ashrama@vedanta-germany.org vedanta_gesellschaft@yahoo.co.de WWW:http://www.vedanta-germany.org/home.asp

for centers around the world: http://www.vedanta.org/wwc/world.html

Hope this helps.

Ramakrishna Mission is the largest Hindu monastery in India. also take at look at http://www.sivananda.org/locations/europe.html#berlin Raj2004 19:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004

Thanks

Hi, Just wanted to say thanks for leaving the introductory links and welcome message in my talk page the other day. Really makes me feel like I'm a part of Wikipedia :) User:Noodhoog (sig added by Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 00:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Glad to have you! Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 00:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Signature

Sam, you might want to correct your sig settings. If Template:vip changes in the future, it may break your sigs. It also confuses the template's Whatlinkshere. Try setting your preferences to {{subst:Vip|user=Sam Spade}}. -- Netoholic @ 00:35, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

OK, hows this: Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 00:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No change. I just tried changing my settings to test, and I guess it won't work :( .-- Netoholic @ 01:54, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

So your seeing it as broken, or what? I'm confused. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 02:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Test meeting today

Sam, you seem to be the only other AMA besides Wally and myself that have commented on trying to have a meeting later today. Wally has checked the irc.freenode.net and has found out that the #AMA channel is free. Hopefully you will get this message and at least the three of us will meet there later, if it all works well then we can have a preliminary discussion and set another meeting date and post notices on all AMA member talk pages (I am suggesting next Sunday for the first session). — © Alex756 02:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm there now, I think. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 13:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

COORDINATOR'S OFFICIAL AMA MEETING NOTICE

The first AMA Membership meeting will be held on Sunday January 23, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 2 PM Eastern NA (Miami/Montreal) Time, 11 AM Pacific NA (Los Angeles/Vancover)Time, and 8 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend. — © Alex756 01:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from Ceyockey

Thanks for the extensive list of useful links, Jack. I am sure they will come in handy.

Regards,

Courtland

email link: http://www.rootsweb.com/~archreg/vols/00009.html#0002115

Vedanta Society

Sam, did you contact the Vedanta Society in Germany or Sivananda? I gave you a link. They may be better able to explain what Brahmanism is.(That term may no longer be used) Raj2004 12:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004

I'm currently more interested in arya samaj, and finding a temple of theirs in the netherlands, which is quite nearby. BTW, I made some changes @ Pantheism, please have a look and see if it is a correct portrayal of smartism. Cheers, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 12:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sam, great edits. I still think you should remove Brahmanism as Hindus don't use that term and leave it as Smartism(that's the Hindu term). I still think you should go to the Vedanta society because that's what monist Hinduism is and is most accurate. Arya samaj may not be the best representative. I would say go both so you can be informed about what Santhana Dharma really is. Raj2004 13:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004

Unless there is something about them I don't understand, I very much approve of arya samaj doctrine. I give my worship only to the infinite, absolute God who is all, and while I am respectful generally of other paths, I feel this is the prefered method. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 13:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you should still check them (Vedanta) out. Vedanta recognizes both form of worship as valid(the absolute, infinite God) as well as formful God. so it's a little more broadminded. Raj2004 15:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2003

Thanks for the welcome.

I have lurked for quite a while, but I hope I can now contribute and help to increase the quality a resource that has helped me a great deal. Zergwyn 01:15, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

Hoorah! Glad to have you, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 01:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)