User talk:Abhidevananda/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

October 2012

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Progressive utilization theory. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Alexf(talk) 16:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not?

The links I added were entirely legitimate. They all represent significant contributions to the body of informative material on PROUT. I added them, because they were not present on the page. So kindly restore the links, all of which connect with PROUT. - Abhidevananda

Please read WP:EL - the links you added are not acceptable under Wikipedia's policy in this area. In addition, they appear to be an attempt to "spam" links to your own web site - which is also not permitted. The best approach is to discuss whether any of the links is suitable on the article talk page. Thanks QU TalkQu 07:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks can be deceiving

In reply to "QuiteUnusual", there was absolutely no attempt to engage in spam or redirect anyone to my website(s). This was a bibliography section, and I am a recognized expert on the subject. However, as a monk, though I have written many books, I am not in the business of selling them. However, in the case of a few of my books that I have published on Amazon KDP, I referenced that instead of my own website(s), where the same material could also be had.

The section where I added the links is entitled "Bibliography". None of my books are listed there, although books by many others are. I merely tried to redress that omission by adding some of my books connected with PROUT (certainly not all of my books). If someone else were to add the same material to the Bibliography section, would that then make it more legitimate?

Yes, there are external links. But the article you reference states that external links are acceptable. It also states that preferably they should not be in the main body of the article. These links are all at the end of the article in a Bibliography, which is certainly not the main body of the article. So I don't see any problem here. Abhidevananda (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Within WP:EL there is a section that can be reached by following WP:ELNO. The essence of it is - don't add external links unless they are directly relevant, provide value that cannot be incorporated into the article and aren't links that should be references or citations. The large number of links you tried to add don't appear to meet these standards (but that's just my opinion after a quick review, I am not an expert). For example, if the link is to something that supports the content in the article, why wouldn't you add it as an in-line citation rather than an external link? I note your point re. "spam" - I wasn't saying that it was spam; rather it might look like spam and hence lead other editors to remove the links. Really this conversation would be much better if it was held on the article talk page where experts on the subject could discuss with you how to incorporate the links and / or material. Out here on your talk page you are unlikely to get an answer - you certainly won't from me because I freely admit I don't know the subject matter well enough to judge. You are absolutely free to re-add the links, but it is possible they'll keep getting removed by people who think they are inappropriate; hence my suggestion for an article talk page chat. Thanks QU TalkQu 10:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's wrap this up

Within WP:EL there is a section that can be reached by following WP:ELNO. The essence of it is - don't add external links unless they are directly relevant, provide value that cannot be incorporated into the article and aren't links that should be references or citations. The large number of links you tried to add don't appear to meet these standards (but that's just my opinion after a quick review, I am not an expert). For example, if the link is to something that supports the content in the article, why wouldn't you add it as an in-line citation rather than an external link? I note your point re. "spam" - I wasn't saying that it was spam; rather it might look like spam and hence lead other editors to remove the links. Really this conversation would be much better if it was held on the article talk page where experts on the subject could discuss with you how to incorporate the links and / or material. Out here on your talk page you are unlikely to get an answer - you certainly won't from me because I freely admit I don't know the subject matter well enough to judge. You are absolutely free to re-add the links, but it is possible they'll keep getting removed by people who think they are inappropriate; hence my suggestion for an article talk page chat. Thanks QU TalkQu 10:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I follow your point. Perhaps what you fail to understand about this subject is that PROUT is a vast topic. The propounder of PROUT wrote much, but it is often not well understood or well represented. What appears on Wikipedia amounts to nothing more than an introductory leaflet on the subject. Perhaps that is why the article is rated as "Start" class. Presumably, to help overcome some of the deficiency, a bibliography has been appended at the end. I have done a little bit of editing of the Wikipedia article itself but have not attempted to correct all of its deficiencies. That simply is not a priority for me right now. But I felt it important to widen the range of information that people would have if they were inclined to learn more on the subject.

Okay, maybe I did not need to give so many links/citations. I did not - and I still do not - expect any objection to the links, given the rather large number of links already existing and pointing to external pages (mostly personal websites). However, there is no significant activity on the Talk page for the article, and I think that it would be a waste of time - might even be viewed as disingenuous - for me to 'propose' adding a few additional links to my material on that page. So I will just re-add at least some of the links. I simply cannot imagine why any honest person a bit knowledgeable about PROUT would remove my links without first removing most of the other links. Abhidevananda (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable approach and, as you say, improvements to the article would be welcomed by all. Thanks QuiteUnusual TalkQu 15:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful critique.

I have updated my declined Neohumanism submission with many additional references - links to existing Wikipedia pages and references to specific chapters in Shrii Sarkar's book covering the corresponding topic. I have also modified the language to make it more 'objective' in nature.

Please note that this is a new philosophy, about which very little has been written by "independent sources". Hence, an accurate presentation of the subject must rely on the original author (P R Sarkar). Please note also that the page that I have created is intended to be a more accurate and more expanded presentation of the subject than what currently exists as a single paragraph on Shrii Sarkar's Wikipedia page. Finally, please note that the aforementioned paragraph also does not provide any other source besides the author. I personally am unaware of anyone who has written very much on the subject other than myself. Certainly no one besides Shrii Sarkar has written more on the subject than I have (which, of course, does not mean that everything I say on the subject is necessarily correct).--Abhidevananda (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Snowysusan (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


Neohumanism

Greetings. I have read and considered your messages. As I indicated when I declined your article, if a paragraph is not enough, then add to it. Add your entire article to it if you feel it is properly supported by reliable sources. There is nothing preventing you from doing that. There is no reason to delete the existing article or redirect readers to one rather than the other. Just combine your information with the information in the article that exists please. Best Regards, Snowysusan (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Further to your last message at my talk page there is little more I can do to explain it to you. I am not preventing you from adding any and all information from your article to Wikipedia. I have simply said to add it to one of the existing articles. Once you have done that you can request that Neohumanism be redirected there. If you wish to seek other help or opinions, please do so. As for no one responding for one hour, please do bear in mind that all of the people reviewing your article, responding to your queries, and trying very hard to assist you are all merely volunteers. Most of us have day jobs, lives and families and are entirely unpaid for our assistance to other users. All we really ask is that users be patient, polite and courteous. Best Regards, Snowysusan (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

To Snowysusan

":::Further to your last message at my talk page there is little more I can do to explain it to you. I am not preventing you from adding any and all information from your article to Wikipedia. I have simply said to add it to New Humanism. Once you have done that you can request that Neohumanism be redirected there. If you wish to seek other help or opinions, please do so. As for no one responding for one hour, please do bear in mind that all of the people reviewing your article, responding to your queries, and trying very hard to assist you are all merely volunteers. Most of us have day jobs, lives and families and are entirely unpaid for our assistance to other users. All we really ask is that users be patient, polite and courteous. Best Regards, Snowysusan (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)"

Susan, thank you for your time in answering my message. I too am a voluntary worker. I have been one for the last 40 years. And I understand about patience and politeness. Unfortunately, your suggestion is impractical. Why would I create a lengthy article that essentially usurps what exists at "New Humanism" to write about a subject that has never been called "new humanism"? The name that Shrii Sarkar himself gave to his philosophy is "Neohumanism", and therefore it is only known as "Neohumanism". No one wanting to know about Shrii Sarkar's "Neohumanism" would search for it in an article called "New Humanism", and it makes absolutely no sense to have a redirect from "Neohumanism" to "New Humanism". I don't feel that I - or anyone else - has the right or the authority to rename Shrii Sarkar's philosophy.

As for the alternative you present - to unreasonably inflate a small section of another article on a much broader subject simply because that is where the Wikipedia link to "Neohumanism" currently goes" - also makes no sense to me when it would be much more appropriate to leave the current paragraph in place and merely offer everyone a link to the "main article" on the subject (as has already been done three times in that same article).

Again, thank you for your time and consideration.

--Abhidevananda (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please use WP:Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Neohumanism does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay... sorry about that, Matthew. Too busy restoring the outline that seems to get corrupted every time someone does a massive edit. :)

Regarding "innovative", I don't think it is a subjective evaluation. If something adds new concepts or modifies old concepts, it is innovative. Clearly, Neohumanism is "innovative". For example, it redefines rationality. This innovative aspect explains/justifies the prefix "neo". Of course, you might argue that "highly" is a subjective evaluation, so I left that out. But what is wrong with describing something as innovative (other than the fact that it probably does not say much about the subject because any variant of a philosophy is necessarily innovative)?

I also don't understand why you removed the WP link to "utility" or the brief remarks about utilitarianism, Bentham, and Singer. Why should the footnote require originality? In this case, I was just trying to show that humanism/utilitarianism/consequentialism is not always entirely human-centric.

Finally, Matthew, thanks for your help in developing this article. I respect and value your comments and have tried to implement your points.

--Abhidevananda (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I replied to your other questions on my Talk, but replying to this one here: the reason I removed some links is that you were overlinking familiar words. Both under- and over-linking are best avoided; in the case of overlinking it clutters up the page and masks what the important terms are. "Utility" is a basic word, shouldn't be linked in most cases. Utilitarianism is a technical term for a school of thought, so a good thing to link. It takes some time to get a feel for it, and there's no "one true answer", but I feel confident that yours was a bit overlinked.
So far as "innovative", though I see your argument I still find it subjective. For example, someone could have an "innovative" new recipe for biscuits, and I come along and say "you barely changed anything, I don't agree it's innovative". "New" is somewhat less subjective, "founded in 1983" is nice and factual. Overall, any "fuzzy" or unclear words (what wiki calls WP:weasel words) are to be avoided. Vague words which compliment the subject are called WP:peacock words, and I fear "innovative" falls into that as well. Instead, best just to clearly describe the goals/perspective of the movement, and the factual information of when and by whom it was described. All good? MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Matthew, I am myself confused as to how all of that overlinking happened. I certainly did not make most of the links myself. I was in fact disappointed that some of my links to other places in the same article (for the purpose of clarification) were overwritten with links to another WP article that does not add any useful information to my article. My assumption has been that there is some WP bot that made all these changes and added all these links. Frankly, I am probably more annoyed by the overlinking than you are. :)
Regarding the "innovative" question... well, it's a thing of the past. I was just curious. I thought you had objected to the word "highly" and later found that you were also objecting to "innovative". Anyway, I do see your point. As I myself stated, "innovative" is largely puff - it doesn't add any thing of substance to the article. Someone else has changed the language in that sentence again, and I am okay with how it reads. --Abhidevananda (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Abhidevananda. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Tito Dutta (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and the links, Tito. There is nothing quite like a virtual cookie... you get to eat as many as you like without ever putting on an ounce.--Abhidevananda (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
See this discussion User_talk:MatthewVanitas#Deleting_of_Photo_on_P.R._Sarkar_article. After that I asked Dr Blofled to help in copyedit here. He almost rewrote the article Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. The discussion continued in a warm and cold way here: User_talk:Titodutta#Talkback_4 where one of your edit has been mentioned! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Had a look at the discussions. Picked up a good piece of advice. Sympathized with your concerns. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Aditional sandboxes

Let me try to explain:

Pen slip correction in last post, shown in green signed: --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! That was easy and it worked fine. I was talking about your offer to be subjected to my questions. :) FWIW, I actually didn't create my first sandbox. It was there when I created a WP account. It seems to be a default setting to have one sandbox (with a link to it as "My sandbox" at the top of the page). --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Sarkar's works

Yes, you have created additional pages correctly. I have had a long time wish to work on Sarkar's individual works and have tried to discuss with few editors too, I can find one at this moment: see second part only of User_talk:Titodutta/Archive_13#Images_troubles. Sarkar was an incredibly talented person. Everytime I read his books (I do not have any book now), I used to think how can a man be so much talented? The problem is there are not too many online free books on Sarkar's work. I have tried to find but couldn't! I need lots of books everyday. Sometimes I need to refer more than 7 or 8 books in a day. So, buying all books just not possible for me. Most of the religious organizations allow at least some of their works/their leader's works to read online for free. But, I had no luck for Ananda Marga. Do you know if they have free version of Sarkar's books online. I mainly want to work on 1) Prabhat Sangeet and some of Sarkar's books like Bangla O Bangali (this is a Bengali book. excellent one!) etc! --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I probably would have had an easier time creating the Neohumanism page if you had been one of the initial reviewers. :)
I totally agree with you about 'Sarkar'. As you would no doubt have figured out, I am an avadhuta of Shrii Shrii Anandamurti. Over 40 years now. Naturally, I find it rather difficult to refer to my guru with just his last name. Have been forced to do so for the first time here on WP. Anyway, it is a relatively small matter.
I entirely agree about the need for more articles relating to Baba's works. Prabhat Samgiita (or Prabhata Samgiita or numerous other spellings) definitely needs an article. 5,018 amazing songs, all given in the last 8 years of Baba's life... allegedly covering all of the ragas of India (I am not an expert on that) and blending Western and Eastern music throughout their long history. As far as I know, there is nothing comparable.
Microvita is a fascinating subject but very difficult to understand. Though only a start-up science, I expect it to have a tremendous impact in the fields of physics and chemistry and perhaps also medicine. If you like I could refer you to some people who have a better grasp of the subject than most.
In terms of philology, there is a huge series on the Bengali language - Shabdha Cayanika. There is also a series of books called Varna Vicitra. As I have heard, these books are used in some universities in Bangladesh. Philology is usually a dry subject, but the way that these books are written - bringing in information on a myriad of other topics - makes even philology absorbing reading.
I have heard others also say that Bangla O Bangali is a great book. Have not read it as my Bengali is primitive. There is also another book - smaller but also published in English - that you might like: "Rarha: The Cradle of Civilization". This also pertains to Bengal.
Clearly, the list of Baba's achievements is quite long. In one meeting I had with Baba in 1977 while he was incarcerated at Bankipur Jail in Patna, Baba apologetically criticized our ancestors, saying that they had not done their complete duty. I joke with him by asking about Shiva and Krsna. He laughed and said that they had done something of course, but not enough. Then he said: "I want to see sufficient change in all the strata of human life while I am still in physical form." He said that while lying on a wooden cot in a hot prison cell, sentenced to a term of life, his body a mere skeleton after fasting for nearly 5 years in protest for having been poisoned. When he came out of jail less than a year later, the speed of his work was simply astounding. Anyway, I digress. My point was that there are many articles that could and probably should be added to Wikipedia. I tried to fill a gap in relation to neohumanism, but currently the list of articles not written is much, much longer than the list of articles written.
Regarding Baba's books, there is an effort to create an online version, but there is also a lot of resistance from the AMPS Central Office, which holds the copyright. The policy is - and will probably remain - that the books will only be sold. That said, the price of books in India is quite cheap. There is also an electronic edition that is available for what I consider to be a quite reasonable price (something like $75 I believe). The advantage is that the books are in a digital format, searchable with a full-text search engine (any third-party software or the one that comes packaged with the product). The main disadvantage for you would be that the electronic edition only includes most (not even all) of the books published in English (which is still a huge number). Foe me this has been a good investment, and I suspect it would also be a good investment for you. You could then purchase the Bengali books that interest you separately. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
You can not redirect an article to userspace. That'll be deleted. I have not nominated for deletion, but someone'll do it soon. Anyway, that's not a big issue.
I have faced lot of difficulties to collect Sarkar's books. And yes, I have read that Rarha: The Cradle of Civilization too, both in English and later Bengali.
In Wikipedia WP:REX an editor can request for resource. They collect a book for you. I have made few requests there. But, I don't think anyone has book of Sarkar. --
I have not made Sarkar in person. Nor I had the opportunity too. I talked with a follower of Sarkar (not an Abadhuta, but only a follower). He had claimed that he had met Sarkar multiple times. I asked him few questions (very common questions "How was your experience?" "What did he say?" etc and I also asked him a question which he found irrelevant and foolish. The question was Did you notice how many times Baba used to blink his eyes per minute? Of course he didn't want to waste time on such trifle and did not allow me to explain my query too. But, really it is a known issue and I have experienced it too, the more we concentrate on something the less we blink our eyes. Baba had a very very high level of concentration and consciousness power, I feel. Anyway...Tito Dutta (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up about my redirect. I redirected to where I had originally wanted the 'article' to be. When I realized it was not a genuine sandbox - that it had somehow gotten published - I added a sandbox template at the top. Anyway, what's done is done. I can live with it.
Baba did not blink nearly as often as I did. That was easy to notice when he was not wearing his thick-lensed glasses. I attributed that to his stronger mind, not to his power of concentration. But I suppose that both apply. Baba did occasionally misspeak. Not nearly as often as most people, but it did happen from time to time. Sometimes he corrected himself. Other times he did not. On many occasions I have had reason to remind others that Baba was not a perfectionist. He had no time - or, apparently, inclination - to carefully proofread each published work. Often he did no more than put his hand on the submitted book and approve it. Of course, some books received more attention than others. But on the whole, I think it pays to read his books with a critical eye and not to assume that everything written in them is exactly as he said it or intended it. The benefits of that are that you tend to get a deeper understanding of his message, and you don't get waylaid by any excessive editorial license. (This is especially important in the books on PROUT.)

Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

I have started this template. Lots of work to be done here, you can help to expand/modify it (you can see Template:Sister Nivedita or Template:Ramakrishna for example), then you/I can add this in the articles! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The template looks like it can be very useful. Thanks for this. It seems that eventually we will have to add Neohumanist Education somewhere in there... not exactly sure where. It seems that Foundations and Institutions does not cover the range of appropriate topics. "Neohumanist Education" (or, probably better to say, "Ananda Marga Education") is a system of education, comparable to Steiner or Montessori, but less technique-oriented and more principle-oriented. Perhaps we need an additional category, Programs, to cover all of the service related programs/organizations that come under the broad category of Ananda Marga and to add those that do not. For example, where would AMURT go? Where would PCAP go? Where would Ek Manav Samaj go? And what about the various trades (for example, Proutist Universal, Seva Dharma Mission, and so on) that are legally independent of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha (an organization), which should in turn be kept distinct from Ananda Marga (a spiritual path). Also the distinction between "Followers" and "Researchers" is not entirely clear or even legitimate. A follower may also be a researcher. Indeed, both of the researchers listed are also followers, and at least one of the two followers listed is also a researcher. I will be happy to work on this template with you. It is a worthy project, and I don't think it will require too much time or effort to improve on it. But right now I have too much on my plate. I have been wanting to add a major section to the Neohumanism article - been working on it for days - and it is almost done... but I need to get a couple of free hours. Also, I feel the need to clean up the Neohumanist Education submission but must drum up some more collaborators before attempting to make the type of drastic edits that I believe are required. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a Hindu forum, they can do magic sometime if asked to collect free ebook, for example see this. I'll see (not right now) if the can provide some book of Sarkar.
The template was just a draft. I have not added that in any article still. Everything in the template can be changed/modified/replaced etc.
For example, see this version of this template when I just started, now see this version of the same template 7 months later. Feel to add/remove/rename groups there!--Tito Dutta (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand about the template. I will try to do some initial work on it tomorrow (my time). Good luck with getting the books you want. If you live in India or have someone who can purchase them there, they really are cheap. I could also try to help you with the purchase of books. I will be going to India in late December. So if I have your address and a list of the books you would like, I should be able to arrange something. You could, of course, write to me privately with that information. In the meantime - and though it is only a pale reflection - you can go to some of my websites to download various free books, music, and films there. Try, for example, Ananda Marga Israel, PROUT Films, and Absolutely Methodical Revolution. There is also some free educational material that I recently collaborated on at Educate and Liberate. Just ignore any hints about donations. Almost no one uses those links. They are there mostly for the benefit of others (and to stop people from nagging me about their absence). :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for offering help, but, I don't need book from you. But, thanks for your help and kindness! And, yes, I live in South Kolkata! I have seen your sites! Yes, I can guess not too many people donate there, in Wikipedia too it is more or less similar.
If not I, someone else will definitely start working on Sarkar related articles, now or few month/years later. If you have those books (at least few books), you can go ahead and start working, the best thing will be if we can collect some secondary sources too (books not published by Ananda Marga but notable publishers).
You can work in that template Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar if you want! I'll ask Cornellius too to participate. He has a good collection of Sarkar's books. --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

New Message

1 hour 48 minutes. Not bad! I could do much faster if I had a fast internet, anyway.. you have a new message in Template_talk:Prabhat_Ranjan_Sarkar#Proposed_outline_and_other_suggestions --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... I think it looks very good! Did you manage to set up the bottom bar with a cookie that would automatically, and perhaps randomly change the quotation according to a text file? That would be so cool. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that will be possible (or I don't know how to it) and it'll require very complex coding with most probably a sub page which not permitted for templates. We can keep this as the last thing to check. You can add some entries there now in those groups now, then I may have some comments! Regards! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sohail Inayatullah

Is Sohail Inayatullah editing Wikipedia? See User:Sohail Inayatullah. Or this editor is someone else? See his contributios, not (very) regular and recently busy with his own article (if he is Sohail Inayatullah)! His talk page shows he was facing problems related to image license --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if Sohail edits WP. He lives in Australia, and I have little contact with him. Presumably so. User:Sohail Inayatullah is definitely the same man - the same initiate of Ananda Marga - who has written on Baba. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Abhidevananda. You have new messages at Talk:Prabhat_Ranjan_Sarkar#Controversies.21.
Message added 13:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please Abhidevananda take a look at the P. R. Sarkar talk. It will be interesting to have your opinion on this controversy. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I have changed your new section header to h3 so that we can find it easily in future. And that discussion was not very heated. You can see this discussion where we used such h3 headers to keep things together and that was more or less a heated discussion too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
h3 is fine with me. I didn't know that could be done. I'm still quite new to writing and discussing on WP. Thanks for all of the helpful instruction. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC) 01:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
You signed out/using another browser? --Tito Dutta (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and almost got to sleep too. :) Well, now I also know how anonymous postings are done. :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Template on P. R. Sarkar

Sorry Abhidevananda if I negleted the Neohumanistic education article on the sandbox.. but I was creating the P. R. Sarkar article on the it-WP (I should like also to translate your article on Neohumanism when you finish.. :)). I've seen that on the P. R. Sarkar's template you deleted some books (f.e. Tattva Kaomudii (3 vol.s), Táttvika Diipiká, Táttvika Praveshiká, A Few Problems Solved (9 vol.s), Light Comes, Human Society Part 1, Human Society Part 2 etc.) and some organizations like RAWA. It's not a big problem for me, but is there a specific reason that you can explain me here? Good work--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It could be as long as a week before I am ready to put something up on education. In addition to finishing the main work I have envisioned for Neohumanism, I want to completely rewrite the highly inadequate article on PROUT. I may choose to work on the education article before PROUT, but I have not done anything with the education article yet - nothing other than to move your material over to a sandbox. My plan is to create a main article called Ananda Marga schools and have Neohumanist Education redirect to that main article. I will structure the article in such a way that more schools may be added to the article and discussed within the body of the article. But at the beginning I will explain the main features of Ananda Marga education (Neohumanist Education), probably based in large part on what Baba says in Human Society Part 1 and my compilation of information in the booklet Renaissance in Education. You may follow my efforts in this regard at this sandbox.
Regarding the template, I did not delete any books or organizations. My main goal was to structure the template and offer some quick examples. I know that the template is very incomplete. That is why I added all of the XYZs - they indicate that there is more to come. Human Society Part 1 and Human Society Part 2 are actually the first items listed under Social Philosophy. The other books - except Light Comes - should also be listed. Light Comes (like Thoughts of P.R. Sarkar) is just some short extracts from various discourses. For now at least, I don't think that such type of book merits a mention. RAWA should be included in the template, along with many other organizations not yet listed. Most areas of the template are very sketchy at best. It is a work in progress and an indicator of the degree of development of the material on WP about Baba.
Hope that clarifies everything for you.
Abhidevananda (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
You are really doing an interesting work.. For the P. R. Sarkar's template: If you thake a look at the the penultimate version on the article's history you will see that I've added some more informations (like RAWA etc.) that are no longer present in the article.. anyway if you think that it's better to maintain it like this it's OK for me.--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
There might be some confusion on the purpose of the template. It is not a standalone page/article. The main object of such templates is to embed it below every article which are included in the template. For example, start with any article indexed in Template:Bengali theatre you'll find the template at the bottom of (the/every) page. Thus it'll give you quick access to all related articles.
The current template has multiple issues which are stopping us to go forward and add it to article. Trying to sum up below-
  • Too many red links. Someone needs to go ahead and create articles on those links. More than 25% red links in a template indicates the template is not ready and should be moved back to incubator (ahem, sandbox)
  • Template too long. If there are too many entries (with wikilink) the common practice is to add the main links only and add a "More" or "Full list" tag as you can find at the bottom of this template: Template:Newspapers in India. Again as the template is too long, we have to use it in autocollapsed state unless we do something to make it shorter
  • Above two are major issues. Now a minor issue is most probably we do not have quotes of Sarkar in Wikiquote. Both in Swami Vivekananda and Sister Nivedita template I used only those quotes which are already added in Wikisource and well-sourced too, thus can't be challenged! The air is different in Sarkar's template!
That's all for now. --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Tito to have a template like this it's very useful for to organize all the informations of this article/author. Of course I understand that we have too many red links, we can temporarily leave it in the sandbox and, as the articles are created we can add the relative links to it. I think that if you use the autocollapsed mode for this template it's much better. As I said before I'm now working on the same article on the it-WP too.--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Tito to have a template like this it's very useful for to organize all the informations..

No, it is not... See Template:Indian_independence_movement or better see an author's template Template:Rabindranath Tagore. We follow summary.only the best links style. For all articles we use categories.

Reply to Cornelius and Tito

First to Cornelius: Sorry, I did not realize that someone else had been working on the template. I had been trying to change the alignment so that everything would be top-aligned and deciding whether a unique color scheme made sense. When I got the top-alignment almost complete in both versions (standard color and custom color), I finally opted for the standard WP colors (with opinions of others taken into account). So I just copied what I had done in my sandbox over to the main page, not realizing that I had overwritten anything. I should have looked at the history but neglected to do so, not having noticed any other changes up to that time. Anyway, it is a work in progress. :)

Tito, I really appreciate your help with this. Thanks for reinserting the references section. I thought that I had added it by mistake in a copy-paste operation.

I do understand that at some stage we will need to add this template - or something similar but shorter - to the various articles. However, the only way we could reach the 75% complete threshold with the current version of the template would be to just create placeholders for articles on WP. I doubt that this would be acceptable. I have been trying to drum up some assistance with this, but so far no one has dived in. So if this must go to a sandbox for the time being, I would not mind that. At this stage, it has mostly internal value. Putting out something that reflects only what appears on WP might give a wrong impression about the extent of Baba's contribution. Like Cornelius, I don't mind if this template is 'auto-collapse'. It would probably be best if that were so.

I understand your point to Cornelius about templates being summaries. The Tagore template looks good. Baba very much appreciated Tagore. Baba had a statue of Tagore prominently displayed in his garden (at the end of the driveway) in his Lake Gardens home. I am sure the statue is still there. Baba also quoted Tagore's poetry many times, including even in his final discourse (the night before he left his body). The closing words of that discourse on the night of 1990 October 20 were:

Serpents are exhaling venom everywhere… It is the right moment. It is the proper moment. It is the most opportune moment.

Náginiira cáridike fushiteche bishakta nishvas Shantir lalit vani shonaibe bartha parihas Bidáy nebar belá tai d́ák diye jai Danaver sathe járá samgrámer tare prastut hateche ghare ghare.

"Serpents are exhaling venom everywhere. The sweet gospels of peace sound like empty mockery. That is why on the eve of my departure from this world, I send out a clarion call to those who are preparing in every house to fight against the demons in human form."

Serpents are exhaling venom everywhere. Now at this critical juncture, should we go on preaching the gospels of peace? No, no, no, no! So, before my departure from the world, said Rabindranath, I have made the necessary preparations for the fight against these demons. Do you all follow? What Rabindranath said 60 years ago is also true in this last portion of the twentieth century.

My only reservation here - also as a Tagore fan - is that I think it is much easier to summarize the life of Tagore than it is to summarize the life of Baba. Tagore was a great man and quite prolific, but his range of contributions was not as broad as Baba's. So I tend to agree with Cornelius - leaving aside the question of Categories - that it would be most effective (at least for the purpose of the Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar article) to offer a very broad and fully representative template. I don't want to pad the template with books that are simply a regurgitation of other books. Hence I would not include most of the compiled books (as I indicated above in my response to Cornelius). But this still leaves a huge number of original books that should appear in the template. Similarly, the range of organizations and activities that Baba founded is also huge and not very meaningfully summarized. Presumably, we could do all of this with categories. For example, instead of listing books, we could just list the current 17 categories of books. We could do something similar with Foundations, Organizations, and Movements. And we could do something similar with the supporters. In effect, we would be reducing the table in our template from four columns to three columns. But then we would need to have as many as 20-30 sub-templates. As cumbersome as the current template is, merely linking to 20-30 sub-templates, where the real information is to be found strikes me as less user-friendly. Anyway, that's just my initial opinion. I am open to other views on this.

Yes, we should definitely add quotations to Wikiquote. There could be hundreds if not thousands of such quotes. But for now this is not high on my priority list. Maybe Cornelius could start that process. Otherwise, perhaps the solution to this problem is also to temporarily move our current template to a sandbox (if need be).

Finally, I managed to top-align everything in the template except the actual lists. I very much prefer top-alignment when there is so much information being presented. I imagine that I could work that out in a short span of time - there might be a global command that could appear in connection with hlist, but I have not come up with it yet (haven't done much research on it, although my quick experiments, based on logic/intuition, failed). Would you kindly give me a tip on that? :)

Abhidevananda (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not to needed to use a +1 header (header 2 to header 3 or header 3 to header 4) to post a reply. It can be done using indent (as you know add : or :: before starting sentences).
Or just add a semicolon (;) before the words which you want to make the header
For example you type this-
; Reply
You get:
Reply
Not only Tagore you can see more templates, Template:Einstein, Template:Shakespeare, summary style is followed in every template!
I can not help creating Sarkar related articles. The main obstacle is "resources (study material, references etc)" which I do not have! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Or just use the color template to highlight something in post (alternatively you can use underline with <u>Underline</u> which results Underline or bold etc). To use color template use {{red|word}} which will result word. I sometimes prefer to use both color and bold. Typing this '''{{red|word}}''' results word. You can use other color names too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for these tips, Tito. They are very helpful. However, I also like to be able to edit just a small section of a Talk page instead of scrolling down a long series of remarks and requiring an indeterminate number of colons (sometimes getting told that the page is already being edited when I try to submit my reply, typically meaning that I need to add one or more additional colons). Having sections facilitates the process for me. But I certainly may have overused sections - especially when I first started responding to Talk material and did not even know about the colons. :)
Again, with Einstein and Shakespeare, their contributions were much more specialized than those of Baba. Once in reporting Baba asked us why we were taking notes on what he said. Then Baba said that he wanted us to know everything. He said that our knowledge should not be specialized but rather enclyclopedic. Naturally, those who were jotting everything down wrote that as well. :) My point, though, is that... well, the template on Shakespeare seems to contain all or most of his known works, and those works are easily categorized. But when we try to do the same thing with Baba, we get a much larger table. The same applies with the template on Einstein.
Regarding your access to books, I am working on that. You live only about 7Km from our main publications headquarters. I will be in touch with the man in charge of translations to see if he could make some arrangement with you. I have just been too busy to write the letter. I will do so soon. Let's see what he says.
Abhidevananda (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to talk to main organization to provide me books (thankfully you have been busy and have not done anything so far, and please don't). But, yes, you can give free resources to WMF (i.e. Wikimedia Foundation), Wikibooks, Wikisources, Wikiversity (online Wikipedia University, where you can put all study material) and also Wikiquotes, Commons or WP:REX.

Some stats:

Keyword Monthly Searches in Google
As of October 2012		 Wikipedia article monthly page view
As of October 2012		 Per cent
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar Around 7000
Including other common names like "Anandamurti", "Anandamurtiji"		 2899 41%
Ananda Marga Around 15000
Some other queries like "Ananda Marga relief", "Ananda Marga publication", "Ananda Marga headquarters" are getting included here.		 4667 31%

--Tito Dutta (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Abhidevananda for the inspiring words.. Tito I was taking a look to wiki-quote and particularly to this [1].. I've seen you was collaborating on this article too. How can you do all this things? You really are very active on WP! If we insert quotes on wiki-quote is there any problem for copyright? If I remember all the problems that I had inserting only some photos (maybe you remember..) and audio files I feel sick thinking about it. Can I ask you something more frivolous.. I've seen that somebody that is very competent on WP receive barstars for his/her work somethimes (you too..) but I don't understand: Anybody can do a "present" like this or there is a system for that in WP?--Cornelius383 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Tito, thanks for the statistics. Very interesting. Regarding the books, I don't have the power to give any books to anyone. I don't hold the copyright to any of Baba's books. That is with the Ananda Marga Central Office. Once a book is "given" as a free resource to WMF, does it mean that anyone can download the book for free? Abhidevananda (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
In the stat above I have tried to show a large number of users (40 of every 100 readers) who are searching in internet about Ananda Murti or Ananda Marga are reading the Wikipedia article. And the second article is not in a good shape.
That's how Wikipedia works. Full freedom, no restriction! No, no, you don't need to give any resource to WMF too. Some websites where paying is required have given us free access to certain number of accounts. See here Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library. You'll find some popular names like JSTOR, Questia, Highbeam who give us free access (I have free access to all those sites. And I have checked for references on Sarkar, no help there too). But, I don't think editors of TWL will be interested to get books from Ananda Marga, because 1) I am not sure if Ananda Marga online library has wide range of books (there might be only few thousand organization related books) 2) Moreover I am also not sure if Ananda Marga has any such library too! I have requested to included British Council in Wikipedia Library, they might have some books related to Ananda Marga! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you will find much. I know of three persons - including myself - who have been encouraging the creation of a website with paid subscription for Baba's books. The Central authorities (in India) have been resisting this suggestion. Hence even the electronic edition of Baba's books in English is now getting out of date (missing some of the recently translated books). I can assure you that this frustrates me even more than it may frustrate you. But that is the situation. I can understand why our Central Office does not want to allow pirating of Baba's books. Indeed, recently one miscreant posted on the Web a complete copy of the electronic edition of Baba's books in English that could easily be downloaded. That is gone now, and I am actually happy for that. Clearly, there needs to be some balance. I understand your point of view and largely support it. I also understand the concerns of our Central Office. I wanted to arrange some 'compromise' by getting you access to the books - not just the books published in English - but you told me not to follow up on that. I wish you would reconsider. I am confident that this would be of benefit all around, but it's your choice.Abhidevananda (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not so much frustrated! There are many many more tasks in Wikipedia. Few months ago, I started working in this image gallery. Uploaded 50+ image here, but still the work is incomplete which I want to take forward soon. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

P. R. Sarkar article in the Italian WP

Abhidevananda if you understand the italian language you can thake a look at this partial translation from the en-WP: it:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but non parlo italiano... not without help from Google Translate. :) Abhidevananda (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Abhidevananda. You have new messages at Talk:Neohumanism#Article already needs a near-total rewrite.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment from neutral point of view

In Sarkar or Neo-humanism we are trying to include theories, concepts and teachings of Sarkar. But, I think somehow everything is getting mixed up and messed up.
Few months ago I started a similar article, I agree the article needs expansion and modification. And I too worked only first 2-3 days and then did not get time to work there. But, please see the article Teachings and philosophy of Swami Vivekananda and comment from neutral point of views:

  • I could not add too many direct quotes, because there is Wikiquote to make a collection of quotes.
  • In the article I did not try to add every single teaching of Vivekananda and you'll also find Vivekananda's commentaries on some major issues are missing there, thus the article is incomplete. But, my primary target was to divide and group those commentaries into sections and present them clearly and in the best way.

PS. I know this article on Swami Vivekananda needs some works ahead!--Tito Dutta (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Naturally, I like Vivekananda. I probably read most of his books, but that was long ago. I did not agree with everything that I read - for example, his explanation of Yama-Niyama in the book "Raja Yoga" - or everything he did (for example, his smoking habit and his nonveg diet), but all in all he was unquestionably a giant of a man. He insisted that people should leave a mark on this world - do something constructive to change the world for the better - and he labored tirelessly toward that end, certainly succeeding in the endeavor. As a devotee, pracaraka, and social activist, he was and still is highly inspiring.
Anyway, please pardon me for now, but I don't think that I am qualified to add much to an article on Vivekananda. I would have to redo my research on the subject, and I am very much pressed for time. The two biggest WP projects looming before me after finishing up my main work on neohumanism concern PROUT (a dreadfully shallow and incomplete article) and Ananda Marga schools aka Neohumanist Education, a non-existent article. That said, if I do get the time, I will certainly have a look at the Vivekananda article and comment on it. Would it be neutral to quote some praise of P.R. Sarkar for Vivekananda? :)
Abhidevananda (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't ask you to work on Swami Vivekananda article. I just asked to see writing style. And if you think the style followed there to sum up teachings and commentaries si alright, we can follow the same/something similar style for Sarkar's article.
I could create few articles (at least stubs for now), I have created 30+ articles in this month (November). For example, you talked about multiple red links in Template:Sister Nivedita, those have been covered more or less. But, for Sarkar's articles the main problem is the old good resources (also neutral sources)! So, I can not help here, I think! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Image conditions!

We generally do not add image which can be explained by text, such as File:Rationality.jpg Screen-readers can not read images and we get regular complaints that where blind and visually challenged people are facing trouble to understand a portion which could be explained by text! The image has a bad title too! Rationality of what? I have filemover rights in Commons, I can move it to new title if you want. I have added categories to your images.
I am busy with suicide series articles and an RFA please add a {{TB}} in my talk page! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I was going to redo the graphic, because it is not high enough resolution. But if it does not add anything to the article, then I will remove it from the article and won't waste time now on improving the graphic. I guess you could move the graphic or rename it if you like. Sorry, I don't know what a {{TB}} is.

Abhidevananda (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel you have not been clicking on the links of my post, You could see the details on TB by clicking on the link {{TB}} above! Can be done easily in once click using Twinkle! I can rename the image please suggest new descriptive name! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I did click the link, but I just did not have the time to read the long page about the TB template. Okay, I will try it now. I have not installed any gadgets for WP. I guess I will have to get Twinkle. Haven't had the time to get into that sort of thing. Right now, I am juggling correspondence from three persons and also trying to make headway with the NH article. As to an alternate name for the graphic, I don't know - maybe "rational option" or "blissful auxiliary" or "rationalistic mentality". You choose or give it some other name that you think works better. :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
It'll take 10 seconds. Go here, Tick "Twinkle" (fourth from the last in "Browsing section, if you can not find, press Ctrl+F and paste Twinkle and Save. Done! Now you'll get a "TB" link at upper right side corner of every page from where you can quickly do many things. I added the under construction tag using Twinkle!
About renaming something descriptive like Neohumanism will be useful, you can suggest name when you have time! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I see. Then let it be "Neohumanism_Rationality". Trying out Twinkle. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Rename done! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks... but did Twinkle work? It suggests that I may be talking to myself. Oh, wait a minute... It seems I still have to go to your Talk page. Got it. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Ya, Twinkle is very helpful to quickly tag articles or reverting edit. There are more gadgets in your preference. Then you have scripts too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Progressive Utilization Theory (PROUT)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Progressive Utilization Theory (PROUT). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Progressive utilization theory. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Progressive utilization theory – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Cindy(talk to me) 07:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give progressive utilization theory a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Cindy(talk to me) 07:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Cindy. My mistake. Sounds like a much better - and easier - process than the one I used. I will do as you recommend now. This was the only page that I have done this with... still a relatively new user so no ("long time ago"). :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No problem! ;) I declined the history merge request, since that process requires quite a bit of work, while the move is a very simple process. Just hold on until the article is deleted, then you can make an appropriate move. If you haven't made a move before and need help, let me know. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 08:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Great! Thanks a lot. I now know how to make the move. I tried do it just now, but... of course... could not do it, because the new page already exists [oops]. I will make the move when the new page I created has been deleted. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Another editor came by and misread what was happening with the article. I thought that you had written something on the talk page that explained it, but when I went back, it wasn't there. I've made a request to move the Progressive utilization theory to Progressive Utilization Theory. We don't actually put acronyms in article titles, so this will work better. If something happens and I'm not around, make a move request at WP:RM/TR. Sorry that the intent was unclear with the other editor. Should work well this time. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 10:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I removed my remark on the Talk page, because the speedy deletion made sense. Anyway, I figure this will all work out eventually. Thanks for your time and patience in explaining things to me, and for all of your help, Cindy. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • In any case Progressive Utilization Theory (PROUT) was a totally unsuitable title - spurious capitals on "progressive utilization theory" and when a subject has an acronym we place that on a separate title as a redirect - PROUT has been there for six years - but we do not combine it into the article title. Please start to archive this page - I recommend you call in the assistance of MiszaBot. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Am I the "other editor"? Please note the title has been progressive utilization theory for the last eight years. This is the correct title. There is absolutely no justification to move it anywhere else. I am shocked to find an experienced editor like Cindamuse even thinking about a move. (Yes, Cinda you did put something on talk:Progressive Utilization Theory (PROUT) but I deleted it as a talk page of a non-existent page.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, RHaworth. I have archived everything. Currently, I am working on the old page.
I understand about the acronym but not about the capitalization. "Progressive Utilization Theory" is a proper name. It is comparable to "Manual of Style", which I note is capitalized at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I have gone through what is written about capitalization there, and nothing is said about not capitalizing the proper name of a theory... unless its a scientific name. In every book where I have seen the name of this theory written out in full, all three words are capitalized. So why not on Wikipedia? Could you please point me to the relevant rule?
Regardless of how long the title and the article have been around, the article itself has not been substantially improved for quite a while. As stated above, the reason I would move the article is because "Progressive Utilization Theory" is a proper name, and everywhere withing the article - and elsewhere - the three words are capitalized. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)( x3) I wasn't aware of the PROUT redirect and caught the acronym too late. (Thanks for the help, Roger! and no you were not the other editor, I was speaking of the other editor that made the redirect! Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't altogether crazy here. I thought I saw something on the talk page. LOL) Abhidevananda, at this point, I've looked through the various sources in the Progressive utilization theory. There is clearly no consistent manner to present this subject, i.e., with or without initial caps. My suggestion is to work within the information presented above. Your alternate choice would be to at WP:RM/TR. Note that this request will be presented to the community on the talk page of the current article. The other editors that have participated in developing this article will most likely weigh in with their recommendations. Then when the discussion is finished, consensus will be determined to either move the article as requested, or maintain the article under the current name. Hope it works out well for you. (FYI, Roger is talking about archiving this discussion page, rather than the article.) Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 10:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I see, Cindy. Archive my Talk page. I'll figure that one out now. As for the move of the page to a title with all three words capitalized, I cannot imagine why anyone who has added content to the article would object. (I doubt that at any time whatsoever that the body of the article ever included a clear instance of PROUT being written as "Progressive utilization theory" rather than "Progressive Utilization Theory".) Those who have only removed content would probably have nothing to add other than WP policy on capitalization... which I am getting here without their input. :) So, I don't foresee any controversy about moving the page. It merely gives the page an appearance that would be less out of conformity with what people who know even a little bit about PROUT would expect or are used to. In any event, I will create a section on the talk page of the article, and put the question forward. I hope that two weeks should be enough time for discussion, if any, before taking a decision. Again, thanks. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

er 2012 (UTC)

Okay, RH. But I've already begun the process of archiving my own Talk page. Sorry... I might have been logged out when I removed my objection to speedy deletion. I will discuss the move of progressive utilization theory on its talk page. I'll put the topic up soon.
Wow! Thanks for the pointer in the MOS. I guess I should have read the material on capitalization a lot closer. Point taken. I will not seek to move the page from its current location, even though I find it jarring to see "Progressive Utilization Theory" written without caps on the second two words (and even though I will probably never do that myself).
Anyway, while I have your attention, I'm struggling hard to map an image. I keep getting the message: "Invalid coordinate at line n, must be a number." Any insight into the meaning of that message. I have patterned my map on other examples in WP, and I just don't see the problem.
--Abhidevananda (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Cancel that question about the image map. Finally figured it out. Had to replace commas with spaces. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

What to say?

Someone is saying– What is being said of our founder Sannyasini Gauri Ma is deliberately affecting our vows, our funds, and our expansion of the convent. They were just adding some copyvio content again and again! See the discussion here --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

They had been making disruptive edits in multiple article, Ramakrishna, Gauri Ma and few disciples of Ramakrishna which lead to report to admins (twice), page semi protection (two articles, Ramakrishna, Gauri Ma), and most of their edits wre like this adding copyright violated content and site's link in article body to get traffic! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand. But what to do? If indeed Gauri Ma was the only women to be directly accepted by Ramakrishna as his monastic disciple, that is worthy of a mention. As for the rest... well, clearly Wikipedia is not intended for mere advertising, but it is unavoidable that people will - to some extent - use it for that purpose. I am editing an article right now, PROUT, that seems to have mostly served that sort of purpose. I am leaving the deletion of the advertising material for last, just to avoid unnecessary conflict (although some degree of eventual conflict is inevitable). I suggest you find some middle ground in respect to the Gauri Ma article, as long as there is not copyright infringement and acceptable references are given. Let the followers of Gauri Ma have an impact on that article, and keep them a bit distant from the Ramakrishna article. That is what I was trying to suggest with my response on the GM Talk page and the example I gave. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Your edits are alright! I failed to understand if that poster was real or fake (impersonating the president of the organization, there are possibilities), but, they seem to have some good knowledge on RKV movement. This is not a common information that since Totapuri initiated Ramakrishna into Advaita Vedanta, all monks, Sanyasis including Ramakrishna are "Puri" marg/branch/sect Sanyasi. They have written it correctly "Gauri Ma Puri". They have said, Gauri Ma is known as the only woman "monastic disciple, I am not sure, since there were Yogin Ma and Gopaler Ma too! Not sure if they were "monastic"! --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I saw your template status question and immediately asked a template specialist to attend the question. I didn't hear back anything from him. :( Might be busy.. And can you please explain how a Wikipedia article is affecting our vows, our funds, and our expansion of the convent.? --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
It might be that she was the only monastic. Some of what is written about the others seems to suggest that they were married. Anyway, if she can reference a source for that assertion, I'd let it go... at least until someone comes along to dispute it. Regarding Totapuri, as I heard it, Ramakrsna took a razor blade or knife and cut the image of Kali out of his trikuti (above the nose between his eyes). It was a difficult transition for him. I have also heard stories in Ananda Marga of Totapuri coming to Baba (Anandamurti) and seeking permission to take moksa (which Baba granted, fasting on the day that he departed his body). From the anecdotes I heard, it would seem that Totapuri was a highly realized man.
Regarding the template question, I finally figured out how to do it. Have inserted the template collapsed in the PROUT article. It required the inclusion of the parameter "|state = {{{state}}}" in the Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar.
As for the allegation about affecting vows, funds, etc., I dismissed that as the same type of hyperbole that led her to accuse someone (you?) of doing the edits to the article that had such an effect for reasons that are "personal and deliberate". I have met some people who seem to think that they are more likely to get their way by making wildly exaggerated claims or accusations. :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Totapuri and Pavhari Baba these two articles I'd like to expand. Pavhari Baba was a Hatha Yogi, Vivekananda met him and mentioned few of his comments in his letters, once Pavhari Baba told Vivekananda Jan Sadhan, Tan Siddhi (I can not translate it without affecting its meaning, but it might be something like What is "Sadhana", that is "Siddhi". And another article where I truly want to work (actually have been working too) is Nigamananda Saraswati, he died after a 115 days fast.
When Swami Ji died after 115 days fast, I talked with few people. The questions I asked them, an Indian sadhu has died after a 115 days fast. What do you think or what is your opinion?
  • A British person: It was a wasted death.... If you cannot do it in the public eye then you might as well not do it.
  • A Ramakrishna Mission (junior) monk: there is nothing important here, we the "Sannyasi" do not give importance to "death", we... we... we... we...
  • All media: unnecessarily related to or compared with the fasting of Ramdev.
I talked with many more people. Not too many people commented only on Nigamananda Saraswati's works. I can understand his aim was already being dealt with (as it has been being dealt for many years without any result), but still, fasting for 115 days! UNBELIEVABLE! I can't do it. NEVER! More than one year has passed. We have started to forget this person. But, still I want to do some work in this article! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
These all strike me as notable people. India has a rich spiritual heritage and a history of remarkable people, continuing up through the present day. In the West, people often imagine that all of the truly great personalities died 1500 or 2000 years ago. :) I am happy when someone helps to bring to the attention of the world that every human being... including you, Tito... has far greater potential than most would nowadays imagine. :) ---Abhidevananda (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you truly believe it?

The "you" in the header is of course not you!

My old Master used to say, "Suppose there is a bag of gold in this room, and in the next room there is a robber. The robber is well aware that there is a bag of gold. Would the robber be able to sleep? Certainly not. All the time he would be crazy thinking how to reach the gold." . . . [Similarly], if a man loves God, how can he love anything else? How can anything else stand before that mighty love of God? Everything else vanishes [before it]. How can the mind stop without going crazy to find [that love], to realise, to feel, to live in that?

  • In a Youtube video I saw a Yogi (famous one) giving lecture to European (or might be American too, all blonde) crowd and saying dramatically- "You are the Shiva, You are the Kali, You are the Durga. You are the Rama, You are the Krishna, You are the Buddha.". They crowd rejoiced and applauded immediately.

When I tried to think deeper, some questions came to my mind. If that Yogi really believed Durga, Shiva, Krishna were sitting before him, could he talk so easily? After writing the last line I try to to imagine you (i.e. Acharya Abhidevananda) is Lord Shiva, and frankly, immediately my hands stopped for few moments.

Anyway, Actually the thing I am trying to say if we concentrate on something (as I did on the Yogi's comment), more questions may arise on our minds. After first reading this section Prabhat_Ranjan_Sarkar#Cosmology, I found it well written, but after reading it multiple times to me it is full of ambiguity, unclear descriptions. A part of it should be rewritten, I think! Not just audience/readers satisfying comments like "You are Durga, You are Shiva" (the question is "how"? if I am Shiva where is my power? How can I acquire it? but, information with logic and analysis! I have at least 10 questions on this section! Do you want examples? --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Namaskar Tito. Regarding the YouTube video, I would agree that the lecturer was probably being dramatic. Regarding Prabhat_Ranjan_Sarkar#Cosmology, it is extremely brief... so brief that it becomes vague and confusing. None of the terminology is defined, and common definitions are not being used for words like consciousness and even evolution. There are also some technical problems with the explanation. At the very least it should have an attached graphic (and there are many to be found if one does an image search on Google for "brahmacakra"). In case you are interested, here is how I explained the subject in a 1984 series of classes in Lagos, Nigeria: Class 5: The Wheel of Creation in Yoga Tattva Part 1
By the way, as I was curious whether the other sections were equally (or overly) concise, I glanced down to the next section, Prabhat_Ranjan_Sarkar#Realms_of_the_Mind. I did not even need to read that section closely to note a significant error there. The first kos'a listed is 'annamaya kos'a'. But that is not a layer of mind. It is the microcosmic physical body. The first layer of microcosmic mind (not just human mind) is the 'ka'mamaya kos'a', which is not even listed in that section of the article. The ka'mamaya kos'a controls autonomic functions of the body, instincts, and physical longings. So, this section also needs to be rewritten, perhaps even more urgently. However, I probably won't be doing it... at least not any time in the next month. My first Wikipedia priority is to finish the PROUT article within this packed week, before I begin a one-month tour to Singapore, Malaysia, and India (during which time I will be mostly offline).
Thanks for bringing all of this to my attention, Tito. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I have read that paper. Hope you'll have a good time in these three countries. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I enjoy life anywhere I am and under any condition. This trip poses several challenges for me, so I expect it will be interesting. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

PROUT article

Actually thank you for editing such a thorough article about PROUT. I've read it entirely. I've thought about translating it to Turkish, but I don't have the time to do such a task right now. I've few more, little technical ideas about the article, which I'll post in the talk page of the article later on. Until then... :) --Universal Life (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a long article, so it would be a tremendous amount of work to translate it. I have already received word from France that they will be translating it there, but I don't envy anyone the task. Hopefully it will be worth the effort. If you have not done so already, you might also like to have a look at the Neohumanism article that I created just before the PROUT article. Also, please have a look at the "Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar" template that I created (with a good bit of help). There is a lot of red there that all represents articles that should also be on Wikipedia. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Prabhat Samgiita

I started the article Prabhat Samgiita. Take a look when you can.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You are seriously not understanding or deliberately ignoring all directions and instructions. Again you have flooded External link section and adding duplicate links in See also in Microvita theory, Prabhat Samgiita. You have been told multiple times not to add the links in See also which are already linked in article body (for example here the article begins with The theory was invented by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, so Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar should not be added in "See also" again! What is your excuse now? --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Tito you can delete it without problems. No excuse.Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

PROUT article (Nonviolence section)

OK Abhidevananda I will try to explain my point in an extensive way (I apologize for that!). Speaking about violence/nonviolence in a WP article related with PROUT requires an extensive explanation of it, without any possibility of misinterpretation. Using the term force and using the term violence is not the same thing: if f.e. in a lecture I teach something good I'm using mental force, applied on a social group, but I'm not using violence. If we want to be more precise, however, we have to speak about: 1)intentions -if f.e. my secret intention is to teach something misleading (and therefore negative), then my use of force can also be called violence: I'm using it against the individual or social welfare. 2)perceptions: -the one who receives my "act of force" can perceive it in a different way (from those who were my intentions) due to defects in communication and/or for other reasons. Furthermore, with a good lesson we can teach bad or good things and a student can perceive it as a good lesson (even if my intentions are bad!) or a violence against him if f.e. he can't sleep during my lecture :), even if my intentions were good. I give you another example used in social sciences: I'm taking part in a protest movement against corruption (and we use to consider corruption as a violence against the social body). Here I'm also using force, but by many this is not perceived as a violence. Rather, we could say that it is the proper use of force to protest, or to defend the people against the violence committed by someone. We can even go further with the examples: if a peaceful demonstration to protest against violence (an appropriated use of collective mental force) is presented as violent by the local media because of some offensive slogans then, many people will perceive it as a violent act and so on... What I want to say is that by using the term "violence" we can be easily misinterpreted. I think the best is to use the term force, or appropriate use of force, or benevolent use of force... Another point is that from Sarkar's teachings I've realised that, on the social sphere the concept of relativity (time, space and persons) it's very important. This means that the use of force requires different approaches for different contexts. Fighting against a bloody dictatorship existing in a country requires a use of force other than that required in another country to improve social justice. On my opinion this points should clearly emerge on this section of the article, otherwise it has an high risk of being misunderstood for those who are unfamiliar with P. R. Sarkar's philosophy. I hope you understand my point. Have a good work and thank you for your efforts.--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I was a bit slow getting started today on edits. Would like to put together the sections on "General economy" and "Cooperatives" today, but may not finish that task due to other pressing work. If not today, then definitely tomorrow.
Look, C, I understand your concern about the section on "Nonviolence". However, I think that the section, though short, says everything that needs to be said. Please read it again. There are only four sentences, but I believe those four sentences make all of the necessary points.
  • Sentence 1 defines violence (with a link to the WP article on the subject violence and a citation from the World Health Organization.
  • Sentence 2 explains the general conception of nonviolence with links to the WP articles on nonviolence, morality, and protest.
  • Sentences 3 and 4 encapsulates the position of Baba on nonviolence with a citation (including quotation) from A Guide to Human Conduct and another citation (including quotation) from Problem of the Day. Sentence 4 also contains a link to a later section of the same article on PROUT, PROUT#Peace.
So I think the subject is pretty well covered. I want to add a note to that section on PROUT#Peace concerning stagnation, but probably won't get around to it today.
Regarding your point about a different approach at different times, I don't believe that has a special relation to the subject of Nonviolence. It is a much broader concept. I believe that concept is adequately covered in the section on Change and amplified (indirectly) in the section on Sadvipras. I don't feel it requires a special mention in the section on Nonviolence, because there the point is only whether or not PROUT endorses nonviolence.
Anyway, rather than discuss this on my personal Talk page, it would be better to initiate such discussion on the Talk page of the PROUT article. In that way, even if we don't add anything to the article itself, your points would still be on record in association with the article, and more persons would be likely to join in the discussion. Anyway, please forgive me if I do not comment further on this subject today as I really would like to make a little headway on the PROUT article today. :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Abhidevananda I was very busy for some days and mostly offline.. Now the section is much better. I've made a recent m change at the Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar#Biography section, and at the Ananda Marga article. Please take a look when you can. Thanks for your precious work. BNK--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Been out of touch for a couple days ... in a countryside area of Malaysia giving classes on Neohumanism (and a bit about PROUT). Just reached Singapore, but very busy. So cannot promise much time for Wikipedia for a another 7-10 days. I will try to look at your material as early as possible. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography of Swami Vivekananda

In last 24 hours I have created and expanded this article Bibliography of Swami Vivekananda, and satisfied with primary structure of the article. If someone (someday...) can create bibliography of Anandamurti, that'll be excellent! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Been out of touch for a couple days ... in a countryside area of Malaysia giving classes on Neohumanism (and a bit about PROUT). Just reached Singapore, but very busy. So cannot promise much time for Wikipedia for a another 7-10 days. I have looked at what you have done in respect Bibliography of Swami Vivekanandaji. We could put together something similar for Baba, but right now my higher priority - well, actually after my return from India in mid January - would be to create at least stubs for most of the red that currently exists in the Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar template. The material that already exists on WP in respect to Swami Vivekananda is much more substantial (relatively speaking) than what exists in respect to Baba. So I think we have a lot of catch-up work to do before getting to such an article. By the way, thanks for the help with the overlinking on the PROUT article and the caption under the logo. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Microvita theory

I started the article Microvita theory. Take a look when you can.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Good work. Right now, I think it is a high priority to create at least article stubs for most of the red items in the Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. So this is very helpful. Please excuse me for not having the time just now to carefully read what you have written there. Will get to it later.--Abhidevananda (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Ramayan

Who is this User:Ramayan? Is he really the author of this image File:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar.jpg? Seeing his talk page, I have doubts! If he is not the author (photographer or copyright holder) of the image, unfortunately we need to delete it! I am asking you because if he really owns copyright of this famous image, he must be a known face in Ananda Marga.--Tito Dutta (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's very hard to know who anyone is on WP unless they state their name in an unambiguous fashion, in some cases necessarily giving some biographical information. So I have no idea who "Ramayan" is. But I do know for certain that he is not the author, photographer, or copyright holder of that image. That image, as I have already mentioned to you was the final "gentleman's photo" authorized by Baba himself for general use and free distribution. Only Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha could conceivably have a copyright on the photo (and, in all likelihood, they do... although it is authorized for general use). So you may surely delete the photo... if you think it is required. Otherwise, you could simply change the copyright on it to Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha or omit that information altogether. However, if that photo is deleted, we would probably have no photo of Baba that we could use. (The previous photo on the Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar page was definitely not authorized for public use.) So, personally, I would just let this sleeping dog lie. No one will ever complain about the use of that photo. The only thing they could complain about was the claim of authorship by "Ramayan". --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Idea and Ideology and Subhasita Samgraha

I started the article Idea and Ideology and Subhasita Samgraha. Take a look to when you can. BNK--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ananda Vacanamrtam (all parts)

I started the article Ananda Vacanamrtam (all parts). Please take a look when you can. BNK--Cornelius383 (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing these article stubs for the books. This latest one and the others look good to me. I was not planning to do anything other than this myself - just create a basic article stub and let it be filled out later. And my stubs would probably have been shorter and less informative than yours. So this is really great, in my opinion.
One small suggestion. It would be easier and it might be better to omit any section in an article that is just a placeholder calling for future amplification. I used those in the PROUT article, but someone came along and deleted them (even though I was going to fill out the material within only a few days). Rather than have that happen with these new articles, I think you could just omit any such sections altogether for now. As I see it, the number one priority at this stage is only to turn most of the red in the PRS template into blue, which means having article stubs for most if not all of the book links. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you're right: I will omit/delete all the empty sections. For the two books "Discourses on Tantra" Volume 1 (a compilation), Part one and two I was thinking to create only one article (="Discourses on Tantra" Volume 1 and 2), the same for all other books with two or more volumes/parts like "Human Society" Volume 1 and 2, Ananda Marga Caryacarya etc.. What do you think? One more question: on the first line of the P.R. Sarkar template, near "Universal mantra" you inserted also "Guru mantra". Do you think that we can speak of this on WP? If yes I would leave to you the compilation of this article :). Have a good work.--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Human Society 1 and 2 are very different, as are Caryacarya Parts 1, 2, and 3. They could be combined or they could be addressed separately. It is not difficult to adjust the template to whatever you decide in this respect. I'll leave it to you. Certainly, we can talk about "universal mantra" (BNK) on WP. Indeed, I think it would be very helpful to do so. Regarding guru mantra, this is a new lesson of spirituality - meditation - that was created by Baba... something that has a close connection with Brahmacarya but is not to be found in Raja Yoga but rather has more correlation to the protopsychospirituality of neohumanism. So, yes, I think we should document this major contribution... naturally without going into as much detail as with the universal mantra. I don't mind to write the articles, but this will have to wait for a few weeks as I am going off-line again from tomorrow.
By the way, I also think we need a separate article (short) on "Pratiika", not just the section inside the Ananda Marga article (or maybe it was the PRS article). That article should include the definition from Caryacarya. But, for now, the books are the highest priority as that is the quickest and easiest way to replace red with blue in the template and present a clearer picture of the wide-ranging contribution involved here. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Now I've deleted the empty sections. I continue with the article on "Discourses on Tantra" (Volume 1 and 2). For now maybe it's better to write only one article for each series of books. We can always change the articles in the future. For now I am not touching the Ananda Marga and Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar articles after the changes (that I consider not appropriate) of Correctknowledge and I will wait for your back again...--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay... I just looked at the Ananda Marga article, and you are correct. CK is spamming the article with his bigotry. His words and his conduct do not reflect his name; rather, the opposite. This is apparent by the places where he omits "allegedly" and chooses to place "allegedly". So I will revert the changes he made and report it as spam... if such an action may be done. But please follow up on this for me as I will not be regularly online for a few weeks. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Take a look at this Discourses on Tantra (Volume 1 and 2) when you can.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
If you go to India maybe you can ask the CO if they can definitely solve the problem of the copyright of Baba's photo (the courtesy one with B&W colours) 'couse we need to insert the permissions in Wikimedia as proposed from Titodutta. It will be interesting to insert in the articles the images of the covers of the different books, but I don't know if we still have permissions from the CO to insert those images on Wikimedia..--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Discourses on Tantra - the article is fine. I would have titled it with a plural ("Volumes" and not "Volume"), i.e. "Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2)" (sorry for not reading your words more closely before). Perhaps you can _Move_ the article to a more correct (grammatically) title. Similarly with Human Society, it would be "Human Society (Parts 1 and 2)" (see reference. (Note that in this case it is "Parts", not "Volumes".) Also, when you have created a stub that is not consistent with Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, you might consider updating the template. Or, if you prefer, I can also do that task... it just might be a bit delayed.
It is in my mind to discuss the matter of photographs with COS or CPRS. Perhaps a decision will be taken on the subject. Perhaps not. However, I am not certain that there is a legally binding copyright on any of these photos... only that, if there is one, it would be held by the AMPS Central Office, per the wishes of Baba. My personal opinion on this matter is that - with regard to the gentleman's photo - it is a storm in a teacup. No one will ever complain or take any action. The photo has been printed numerous times in newspapers around India and the world. And, should there be any official complaint from the AMPS Central Office to Wikimedia, then at that time Wikimedia could promptly remove the photo without any embarrassment or legal consequences. But, to the best of my knowledge, such an event has never happened before, and I do not see any likelihood of it happening in this case either. --Abhidevananda (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Oops.. Tomorrow I will try to change the article's title from "Volume" to "Volumes". The matter of photographs/images: it will be very interesting to study a sort of "standard declaration" from AMPS CO to make some pictures (or if the case also some audio files) officially copyright free. Another point is that the photo of the late Shraddhananda Avt. (inserted as second president of AMPS) along with the gentleman's photo of Baba were recently removed from Tito (I don't know why) even before the addings of correctkowledge. The photo of Shraddhananda was taken from me on April 1993 in Germany (in Wendelsheim near Mainz) during the visit of Shraddhananda in Europe (as I declared on Wikimedia commons).--Cornelius383 (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Please when you can also compare the incipit of this with this. Why to delete the phrase: "also known by his spiritual name,[note 3] Shrii Shrii Ánandamúrti"? In my opinion we have to maintain this information on the incipit for a better understanding (many books of P. R. Sarkar were signed with His spiritual name and it's normal and not forbidden in WP to mention the spiritual names and pseudonyms. F.e.: "Swami Vivekananda, born Narendra Nath Datta") with the included notes of explanation. Please compare also the "See also" reference at the end of the same article. The links that I've previously inserted (as Law of Social Cycle, Other Social cycle theories, Sadvipras, Ananda Marga College, Ánanda Sútram, Ananda Marga missions etc. have been now replaced with Ramakrishna Mission and Bharat Sevashram Sangha that are not directly related with the article.--Cornelius383 (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The earlier version was a much better first paragraph in the lead to the article. I restored it. Of course, we should have the aka and all of the rest. It is much more informative. Anyway, let's close this section on Ananda Vacanamrtam... we stopped talking about it long ago. And I need to go to the airport. --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Moved "Discourses_on_Tantra_(Volume_1_and_2)" to "Discourses_on_Tantra_(Volumes_1_and_2)"

I will try to go on with "Human Society (Parts 1 and 2)"--Cornelius383 (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Good. I see that CK has reverted my reversion, and I then reverted his reversion of my reversion. Please carry on likewise. I am about to board the plane, and then I might be offline for the next 3-4 days. In general, I expect to have only occasional online status over the next 3 weeks. But don't let this obsessed bigot spam your articles. He claims that there is a lot of material about AMPS in the PRSarkar article, and on that basis he wants to infuse clearly biased material. The fact is that the PRSarkar has almost no material about AMPS in it. And the fact is that he only "alleges" anything good about AMPS. Any rubbish - including rubbish that was disproved or never substantiated - he writes as if it is fact. That is not a neutral presentation of information, and we should not tolerate it. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Human Society (Parts 1 and 2)

Started the article Human Society (Parts 1 and 2). Take a look when you can.--Cornelius383 (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You are making blunders everywhere.
Don't get surprised if you see someone nominating these articles for deletion.
Want suggestions? Get adopted by someone here (choose an experienced trainer here Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user). --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Tito for your suggestions I will try my best.. You know that I accept your expertise to improve my work on WP. Please can you explain me:

1)Subhasita Samgraha (all parts): why it is "orphan", has a wrong title a reference issue and non acceptable source?, 2)Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2): why it is "orphan" and has a non acceptable source? I apologize for my inexperience in WP and I ask you to be patient with me...Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not actually orphan since that is linked in that template, but I am not sure if it is linked in any article body! What do you mean by "All parts", if you are writing about all parts, it is not necessary to mention it in title, just name it "Subhasiita Samgraha". About your rationale on the Sarkar's image that no one is going to complain against it etc, see Commons:Commons:PRP. If you say that, that might be a good reason to delete that image. We can not keep an image because copyright owner does not mind and not going to complain or "you" believe (without any reference or details) that they allow to use their image. Add categories in uncategorised articles. Have you got a trainer? --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Just moved the titles "Subhasita Samgraha (all parts)" to Subhasita Samgraha and "Ananda Vacanamrtam (all parts)" to Ananda Vacanamrtam. Inserted categories on the articles and correction of wrong wlinks from the P.R. Sarkar template. For the Sarkar image I've asked Abidhevananda to find a solution to it during his trip to India. For this photo I told you the informations that I had (I heard once that was from the fifties and I'm sure that is free from copyright but I don't have any paper to witness my assertions). I can do nothing in this sense and it's a pity to delete it leaving the article without a photo of the AM founder. No Tito I haven't got a trainer now. I'm usually very busy with my work sometimes and I cannot engage consistently also on this. I must say that I learn a lot from your lessons and I hope that this will not create discomfort to you. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Good work, Cornelius. Tito, thanks for the advice. I like the idea of just saying "Subhasita Samgraha" and then mentioning in the body of the article that there are many parts (volumes). Same with Human Society. Gets us away from the use of parentheses. By the way, Subhasita Samgraha is referenced in the PROUT article. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Problems of the Day

I started the article Problems of the Day. Take a look when you can.--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cornelius, please create a redirect link from "Problem of the Day" on that. The original title (until 1996 or 1997) was "Problem of the Day". "Ajker Samasya" - samasya - translates as either "problem" or "problems". Actually, "problem" is a better translation as the book focuses on one problem (in many facets) - capitalism. --07:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Discourses on PROUT

I started the article Discourses on PROUT. Take a look when you can.--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As you know, this book was originally published as "A Discussion", but it went out of print. In the current 'edited' version, it was renamed "Discourses on PROUT". You might want to mention some of that. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A Guide to Human Conduct

I started the article A Guide to Human Conduct. Take a look when you can.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Great. I added the Yama-Niyama template to the article. Figured... if not there, then where? :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sarkar on Siddhi?

Can you tell me what was Sarkar's view on Siddhi or attaining special powers? Does meditation help to attain Siddhis?

We have gathered some other opinions! Only four of them (not mentioning common ones like Vivekananda, Ramakrishna etc)

  • Ramana: The self is only one, when there is no other how can there be Siddhis.
  • Nisargadatta: Those who get involved in Siddhis are playthings (toys) of Gods. The Answer to what I was before being born would even put Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh into silence.
  • Swami Krishnananda: The universe is linked to the individual through a transcendent consciousness (I’ll explain in detail) which you may call God. It is actually universal and only appears to work through an individual. Just like in a dream if a tiger kills you, the tiger, you, the killing etc, are all part of one waking mind.
  • U. G. Krishnamurti: These powers are also present in animals. Anyone selling them is a cheat because he is giving you what you already have (How?). When that (meaning relization) comes it wipes everything away. Then there can be no question of powers. There can be no questions at all. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


Tito, I am on a train for the next almost two days. No electricity. So it will be difficult to communicate. But Baba mentions the concept of "siddhi" at least 100 times in just those books that are translated into English. "Siddhi" is not always used in the sense of attainment of occult powers, for example the eight occult powers (aeshii siddhi or as't'asiddhi). Often the term is used in the sense of "self-realization" or "perfection", for example, "vashiika'ra siddhi". And there is also the concept of "prama' siddhi", which is an ideal spiritual balance in the new science of prama' that Baba introduced.
In any event, "siddhi" - prama' siddhi, mantra siddhi, and so on - generally has a spiritual component in Baba's discourses. Hence, while talking about Shiva, Baba defined "siddhi" as "success in the spiritual stratum". So the short answer to your question is: Yes, meditation definitely helps in the acquisition of "siddhi". It also helps in the acquisition of the occult powers, though this is not a goal that is ever encouraged by Baba. The acquisition of an occult power - generally in the stage of ekendriya - is essentially an obstacle to overcome by persistence in one's goal - the acquisition of Parama Purusa and not any toys that Parama Purusa might distract us with.
Anyway, it would seem you are mainly interested in the eight occult powers - what Baba often called aeshvaryas. About those, Baba asserted that Iishvara must be established in those eight powers, citing both Shiva and Krsna as examples. For example, in Namami Krsnasundaram, Baba explains each of the occult powers in detail, sometimes explaining how Krsna exemplified that power.
To sum up is difficult. However, there is one discourse that probably addresses your question. The discourse is dated 1971 December 21 (Patna). Unfortunately, I arrived in Patna seven days later, so I cannot confirm the authenticity of this discourse (which is published in an appendix of Ananda Vacanamrtam Part 30), but it seems consistent with what Baba has said elsewhere and how Baba talked and how a discourse might go in those days. What follows is the transcript (presumably from a tape recorder located under the choki on which Baba sat while talking to the margiis):

What is the goal of human life? A person should love – what? Parama Puruśa, or occult power? If one gains occult power, one may do so many things. In the third stage of sádhaná,[Ekendriya] a sádhaka gets some occult power. And after getting the occult power, suppose that he or she becomes engaged with that occult power, he or she wants to display that occult power. What will happen? He or she will fall down. He or she will be nowhere. He or she will not remain a sádhaka. So in that stage, in the third stage, one will have to be very, very cautious. And even with those occult powers [one should say], "I want Parama Puruśa, not the occult powers." Do you follow?

Mother is cooking and little baby is there crying. "Ma! Ma!" he is crying. What will the mother do in such a case? She will give a toy to that little baby and again start her duty, her cooking duty. But the baby is quite intelligent and says, "No! I don’t want this toy, I want you!" Then what is the mother to do? She will have to do like this [imitating a mother cuddling a baby in her arms]. It is the mother, and not the toy, that the intelligent baby wants. Similarly, an occult power is just like a toy. If Parama Puruśa gives you a toy, what are you to say? "Oh, ah, very good, very good!" – ? No, you are to say, "I don’t want it, I want You." What are you to say? "I don’t want the toy, I want the Maker of the toy." So you see the third stage of sádhaná is a great [test]. You will have to select between occult powers and Parama Puruśa.

What will you [looking at one particular disciple] do in that case, in that third stage of sádhaná? Will you will choose occult powers, for people to say, "Oh, D– is a supernatural man! D–, you’re a great yogi! You have so much power!" Will you do like this? No, no, you want [Parama Puruśa]. And you…? [asking various disciples] And you…? Don’t you want occult powers? No, you do not want occult powers. That is [right]. "I don’t want occult powers, I want the Lord of occult powers."

In society those who have no knowledge, little knowledge, regarding spirituality, think occult power is everything. But those who are actually elevated persons [consider such power] meaningless. When a sádhaka wants occult power from Parama Puruśa, he or she may or may not get occult power, but it is sure he or she will not get Parama Puruśa, because he or she did not want Parama Puruśa. He or she wanted occult powers, so he or she may or may not get occult powers, but he or she will not get Parama Puruśa. Be very strict in this respect.

[The author paused and looked very slowly and intently at almost everyone in the room. There was absolute silence.]

Do you follow?

[Addressing one disciple:] V–K–, stand up. Do you want occult powers? You don’t want occult powers? Then you are not an "intelligent" fellow if you don’t want occult powers! You don’t want to be that type of intelligent, eh?

Do meditation on occult powers and see if you are getting any – what shall I say – ánandam [bliss] or not. Ahhh. Now meditation on Parama Puruśa – don’t disturb him please – meditate on Parama Puruśa. [V–K–, in trance, raised his head back.] Certainly you are getting ánandam. [V–K–’s head went higher, his back arched.] Try to be with Parama Puruśa. Go inner and inner… [V–K–’s hands rose up shoulder height, then higher and higher, outstretched and quivering]… inner and inner… inner and inner… [V–K– groaned with ecstatic feeling] … inner and inner… [V–K– moaning]… inner and inner … [V–K– moans very intense]… be with Parama Puruśa… go inner and inner… inner and inner. [V–K– gasped and fell backwards in samádhi (ecstatic trance) and into another disciple’s lap.]

Don’t disturb him. He wanted Parama Puruśa. So, if you want to get occult powers, go outer and outer; if you want Parama Puruśa, go inner and inner and inner and inner.

You should always remember this. Do not be after occult powers, be after Parama Puruśa. Occult powers, like all other powers, are transitory, temporary in nature, not permanent in nature. As soon as you die, occult powers will also be taken away from you. But Parama Puruśa will remain with you even at that time, for that property is of a permanent nature.

Occult power is an ordinary power. The general public does not possess that ordinary power, that is why they think it is a supernatural power, is occult power. Gold is an ordinary metal, but because it is a bit rare, it is costly. Otherwise machines, spades, tractors would have been manufactured with the help of – what? Gold, not iron. Gold is an ordinary metal. It is just like that. Occult power is an ordinary power. People say it is supernatural. There is nothing supernatural in this world. Everything is natural. But because it is a bit rare, people say it is supernatural.

Do you children want occult power? Or [pointing to V–K–, still in samádhi] do you want to be a "fool" like that one? Abhidevananda (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2012‎ (signed by --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC), have not added unsigned template to honour this long reply)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abhidevananda/Archive_1&oldid=1211790323"