Talk:Hindu cosmology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I think a separate page is required. --Bhadani 16:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Astronomy and Cosmology.

I don't know why these articles were merged. Please do not mess "Astronomy" and "Cosmology" again. They are entirely different things. deeptrivia (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sometime we merge as we may not be aware of the factual position, and sometimes, merger arises as the page remains a stub for long. There may be varioud reasons. In this case, two separate pages are required. --Bhadani 16:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

hi- does anyone have a better image of a vedic mandala? i saw some in a show in new york and they are AMAZING. the gif on the hindu cosmology page is lame in comparison, tho it is a good explination. ive been looking for images like those i saw ("rose apple island " )but no luck so far

( thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.0.87 (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources and References Needed

I have added the WP:NOR, Original Research banner to inspire editors to cite valid references for this article. There is a lot of unsubstantiated material here. Let's fortify it. I have added refs for the first section but need help with the rest of the article. Thanks!--Keithbob (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Move Controversies and Calendar Section to New Article

In response to tag: I agree. Discussion of Earth's shape and motion do not belong on this page in my opinion.--Keithbob (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the Calendar section should be moved to some other appropriate article. --Keithbob (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Repetitive Copy: Four Yugas and Creation of the Universe

It seems to me that the sections Four Yugas and Creation of the Universe are just a rehash of the concept of time that is described in great detail in the opening paragraph of the article. I'm might be OK with the Four Yugas section since it is a nice clear summary of the four Yugas and a good reference tool (even though it is repetitive). However the Section on Creation of the Universe seems both repetitive and nebulous. The Puranas are a part of the Vedas. So why are we trying to distinguish between the two descriptions of what appears to be the same thing? If there is some clear and valid distinction than let's make the point in a few sentences with a partial rehash of the Brahma and Yuga points already covered in the opening section of the article. Do you get my point? Can we tighten things up a bit? I'd like to have feedback before I make anymore changes. Thanks for you help! --Keithbob (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has responded I am gradually making changes. I'm still open to other points of view. Let's discuss it.--Keithbob (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

After more careful reading of the section on Four Yugas and Creation of the Universe I feel that it does bring out some new versions of the concepts in the opening section and is not redundant and does not need to be removed. However it needed to be moved and the section title edited. Having done that I am now satisfied with all of the sections execept those that need to be moved to a different article as noted in talk sections below.--Keithbob (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hostility Towards Krishna Consciousness

Hi, I was just wondering if someone could clear something up for me. It seems to me as if Wikipedia does not want Krishna Conscious beliefs anywhere in Wikipedia articles. For some reason Wikipedia believes that Krishna Consciousness does not matter and that it is Vandalism to even include anything about them. For example in articles such as Rama, Wikipedia will not even let me say that according to ISKCON or Krishna Consciousness Rama appeared 20 million years ago or that he is believed by ISKCON to incarnate every 8.64 billion years (a day of Brahma). Since Wikipedia considers ISKCON to be Hindu I think this should at least be noted since I have supplied many accurate sources from ISCKON itself that represents ISKCON’s beliefs. These are not my own beliefs or original research but beliefs by what you consider a sect of Hinduism so I thought it would be appropriate to atleast acknowledge Krishna Conscious beliefs since you say it is apart of Hindusim. When I do include this you say ISKCON is not Hindu and it does not count in a Hindu article. So if I go on the ISKCON page and change the word Hindu to Vedic or Krishna Conscious, you then say that ISKCON is Hindu and stating it as another religion is wrong. So I think this a contradiction. You insist ISKCON is Hindu and that the word Hindu must be used but you fail to let anyone even acknowledge the beliefs of ISKCON in Hindu articles like Rama or this one “Hindu Cosmology”. It seems like this is a double standard. You insist that ISKCON is Hindu but when I include ISKCON’s beliefs in Hindu articles like this one or Rama you insist that it is not Hindu and cannot get any mention whatsoever. This is unfair because in many articles of Hinduism even non-hindu beliefs are given yet when I try to say if we can have just one sentence acknowledging ISKCON’s beliefs you do not allow it. It seems as if Wikipedia will deny that ISKCON is separate from Hinduism and at the same time insist it is not Hindu in order to completely censor its beliefs relating to Hindu topics such as Rama or Hindu Cosmology. For example you say I cannot even write any ISKCON-related beliefs about Hindu Cosmology, yet you insist that ISKCON is Hindu. This is hypocrisy because you will not acknowledge ISKCON to be its own religion so you call it Hindu, but even so then you will say it is not Hindu and that any view ISKCON has on anything Hindu cannot even be mentioned in one sentence anywhere. I even tried to make my own articles to give the Krishna Conscious belief of Krishna, Rama, and other but Wikipedia continually deletes these articles again and again even though I have many reliable sources. The articles I create are usually entitled as Rama in Krishna Consciousness, or Krishna in Krishna Consciousness so that I am not being biased and that it is not my point of view because I am saying in the title that this is the Krishna Conscious view. So people know that is why it is only talking about one view. And I cite many reliable sources from ISKCON to prove it. I made these articles because Wikipedia would not let me even include one sentence about ISKCON’s belief about Rama in his article, even though they insist ISKCON is Hindu and has a fit if anyone says otherwise. Sadly Wikipedia seems to want to censor all ISKCON related beliefs, all beliefs about how Krishna Consciousness views other things. For example there is an article entitled Jesus in Islam. This gives the Islamic View of Jesus. But when I created an Article entitled Jesus in Krishna Consciousness many times every time Wikipedia deleted it and blocked me from editing. I had cited many reliable sources of How ISKCON (Krishna Consciousness) views Jesus but they keep saying I am vandalilzing. I think it is religious intolerance that other beliefs are allowed to be expressed like Jesus in Islam but Jesus in Krishna Consciousness cannot be allowed to exist. Why is this? Why must Krishna Conscious views by censored and grouped in Hinduism like it doesn’t exist and then their views are not even mentioned so that people do not even know these views exist and assume that everything a Hindu believes in is the same as a Krishna Conscious person. It is like saying Jesus in Islam should not exist, so that everybody will think that the whole world thinks Jesus is the Son of God. Why is Wikipedia letting other religions express their beliefs in articles but censoring any Krishna Conscious belief that does not agree with Modern Hinduism. Even when I create articles explicitly stating that this the Krishna Conscious belief you have people saying it is biased and should be deleted. It is not biased. It is the Krishna Conscious belief. With that logic the article Jesus in Islam is also biased because it only talks about the Islamic beliefs about Jesus, but obviously nobody believes this because obviously if it says Jesus in Islam it is only supposed to be about Islamic beliefs concerning Jesus, in the same way if the articles says Jesus in Krishna Consciousness it is only supposed to be about Krishna Conscious beliefs concerning Jesus. Why are other religions allowed to express their beliefs on Wikipedia but Krishna Consciousness is persecuted. Why is this religion being persectuted? It doesn’t makes sense why is an article like Jesus in Islam okay but an article like Jesus in Krishna Consciousness is not? I have cited many good and reliable sources showing the Krishna Consciousness view of Jesus, just like the article Jesus in Islam shows the Islamic belief in Jesus, but because it is Krishna Conscious, Wikipedia does not like it so it destroys and erases the article and blocks me again and again everytime I try to represent the Krishna Conscious beliefs. Why are other religions allowed to express their beliefs but Krishna Conscious beliefs are not allowed on anything except the ISKCON page? Is Wikipedia Anti-Krishna Consciousness. All I know is I live in America and in this country we have Freedom of Religion and we not censor one religion but let other religions be expressed. If you have Jesus in Islam but not Jesus in Krishna Consciousness that is unfair and Un-American. I do not think Wikipedia should be allowed persecute Krishna Consciousness yet let other religions express their beliefs. Wikipedia does not want Krishna Consciousness views to be expressed so they call ISKCON Hindu but if you want to mention “Hindu” beliefs in Hindu Cosmology they through such a fit and block you, yet they insist it is Hindu and will not let you say otherwise. What is this hypocrisy. If I were to create a page entitled Krishna Consciouness Cosmology and provide good reliable sources showing how Krishna Consciousness views Cosmology it would be immediately erased because Wikipedia will not let Krishna Conscious views be expressed because they hate Krishna Consciousness but they will allow other religions to be expressed and will allow Mormon Cosmology, Jain Cosmology, Buddhist Cosmology, Biblical Cosmology etc. I cannot include Krishna Conscious beliefs in the Hindu Cosmology article because even though they say it is Hindu then they say its not Hindu and if I try to create an article called Krishna Conscious Cosmology they will not allow it because Krishna Consciousness is the one religion that Wikipedia hates and will not allow to be expressed yet every other religion can have one Buddhist Cosmology, Jain Cosmology, Biblical Cosmology, but no not Krishna Conscious cosmology. The only way that Wikpedia can censor Krishna Conscious beliefs is by first not allowing anyone to remove the word Hindu from the ISKCON article. They will not allow you to say change Hindu Scriptures to Vedic Scriptures and they will not allow you to change Hindu religion to Krishna Consciousness on the ISKCON article. The reason they do this is because they want to censor Krishna Consciousness beliefs by calling them Hindu so that nobody knows there is actually a religion called Krishna Consciousness who have belefis that differ from Krishna Consciousness. This is exactly who they censor Krishna Consciousness. First they deny it exists as a religion by claiming it Hinduism and then when we want to express Krishna Consciousness beliefs in Hindu articles they do not allow this and deny it so people are not aware of Krishna Consciousness beliefs. In this way Krishna Conscious belefis are never expressed and nobody knows about them. Since they are called Hindu everybody assumes that Krishna Conscious people are Hindu, believe the same things Hindus believe in and that there is no difference because Wikipedia will not allow us to call Krishna Consciousness different from Hindu and when we want to express are beliefs in Hindu articles they will not allow it so that people are unaware of them and think they are just all Hindu, and they will not allow creation of Krishna Conscious articles like Jesus in Islam, because then people would be aware of these beliefs, but they don’t want that because they want to persecute Krishna Consciousness by calling it Hindu and then not allowing inclusion of its beliefs in any Hindu article because then people will know it is different. This is the only way they can extinguish Krishna Consciousness, by denying it exists by merging into Hinduism and then denying what they call Hindu beliefs to be expressed in a Hindu article. They then say it is not Hindu, but if you change Hindu from Krishna Consciousness they will say it is Hindu, and if you create your article about Krishna Consciousess they delete it because they do not want people to know Krishna Consciousness exists as a unique belief system. Well this is America and I don’t care what Wikipedia does it can block me as many times as it wants but I will still keep editing every day of my life. Do you know why I can do this? Sure Wikipedia can block my computer, but it cannot IP ban every computer at my University, and every computer at the Public Libaray, and every computer I have access to because if you count all of the computers I have access to at my University and at the Public Library near my house it would come out to be like 100,000 computers. This means that even if you blocked the IP address of a computer I used every day it would take you 300 years to block every computer I have access to at my University and the Public Libarary which I go to everyday. For this reason I will continue to edit everyday and you can keep blocking but You will have to keep doing so for 300 years, and your kids will have to continue, doing so and then your grandkids will help to keep reverting my blocks because I have “FREE” access to so many computers at my UNIVERSITY and LIBRARY that you could block my IP Address on a different computer every day for 300 years and you still could not stop me from editing. Even if I die I have people who will continue editing every day and if they did they also have people so this could go on for thousands of years. Bottom line you cannot stop me from editing because I can edit every single day, which I WILL DO! And even if you block my IP everyday its not a big deal because I will just use a different computer in the library or a different computer at my University, or a different computer at my House, or a computer at my friends house, etc. Do you not understand I have free access to so many computers? If you block the IP of all the hundreds of thousands of computers at my University and the libraray, and my house and all my friends houses, I will just go to another library where there are thousands of more computers that you can block, if You block all the IP addresses of all computers in my city, then I will use computers in another city, its not a big deal. If you try to block all the computers in my state. I will go to another state. If you block all the computers in my country, I will use a computer in a different country. You cannot block all the IP addresses of every public computer in the world. There are millions and millions of computers that I have free access to and mark my words I will continue to edit all of these articles every single day of my life which might be another 70 years since I’m young, so probably much longer than most of you will be alive for and if I die no problem I will have people editing all the same articles every day just like I did and you cannot block every public computer in the world, so you can keep persecuting my religion and blocking my IP but when the next day comes I will just use another computer at my library and college and you can block that to. And you can do this every day for thousands of years. What’s the use? Just give up and stop persecuting my religion because you will never win and I will never give up. So please stop persecuting my religion, it doesn’t matter to me I will keep editing every day whether or not you agree with me or not and we have already established that I have enough access to convenient and free computers so it is in your best interest to stop, because what will you gain? I will keep editing every day whether you like it or not? You can’t kill me, so give up and stop persecuting my religion. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.48.93 (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussing your views and why you feel your edits are justified is all well and good, but threatening to turn this into an edit war is a big no-no. Based on what I've seen, you're the hostile one in this dispute. If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, I suggest you tone it down and engage other editors in rational and calm debate. Believe me, even if you do edit every single day, you will be reverted unless you explain why you think your edits should stay and gain consensus.

In short, don't accuse other editors of persecution simply because they are following Wikipedia policy in reverting edits that are unsourced, unverified, and unsatisfactorily justified. --clpo13_(talk) 08:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess we have to consider two points here. First, when an article is talking about one way of belief, one might not add another perspective to it, unless it really makes sense. I would prepare another article and publish it in the Wikipedia along with references to websites, books and related works, more perhaps with a word or two on this article for linking.

On the other hand, it's a bit confusing how Wikipedia is truly maintaining it's neutral point of view and presentation. It might've sounded harsh and hard, but I found most of the articles in Hiduism are mostly based on references that are not established in India. I am not sure if neutrality really means it should be established by a western author, may intellects forgive me. If the article is about software or say Big Ben, I agree 100%. However, when an article on Valmiki declares he is born around 400 BC, which implies Ramayana was written around 400 BC based on a western researcher's reference, many of the intellects simply smile at one such article. No offense intended, I am just representing a group of highly knowledgeable intellects in Sanskrit, Vedic studies and much much more deeper understanding towards roots of Hinduism. I myself am studying those for the past 20 years.

IMHO, if Wikipedia wants to talk about religious matters, I guess neutrality would mean representing both western researchers' conclusions _AS WELL AS_ eastern intellects' opinions. For example, from Yoga Vasishtham, it is mentioned that Valmiki himself is born twelve times. On the other hand, a name such as Valmiki could be used again and again for generations together, which questions the validity of such research by name and incidents. Better represent both believes and studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guttina (talk • contribs) 20:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

1 Brahma Day is made of 1 Kalpa or 2 Kalpas?

The article mentions:

One day in the life of Brahma is called a Kalpa or 4.32 billion years.

A book called 'The Mind of God' written by Paul Davies mentions:

Four yugas made up a mahayuga of 4.32 million years; a thousand mahayugas formed a kalpa, two kalpas constituted a day of Brahma; the life cycle of Brahma was one hundred years of Brahma, or 311 trillion years.

I have taken this excerpt from Chapter 2 (Can the Universe Create Itself?) - Section 'Was There a Creation Event?' - page 40 of the book.

-- Discmagnet (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The confusion came because of translation as well as school of interpretation.

Many of the Sanskrit terms mean extremely different meanings based on the way of interpretation. The Veda itself, many Vedic Scholars and intellects say, should not be interpreted as just Sanskrit poetry. It has various interpretations using various schools of study. For example, a simple stanza can mean a ritual that a man has to do or the same may mean praising the divine or the same may mean a mathematical equation or the same may mean entirely different in a sanyasi's life. Just as an example, Vyasa had given bhashyam or an analysis for the Veda, so he is called Veda Vyasa. From his school, the same stanza means different than some other school. As far I remember, Veda Vyasa analyzed the Veda in the context of Gruhasthasrama or the married phase of human life. Other phases definitely have other meanings.

Another example, refer to Rigveda, where we offer havis during a yajna to Surya & Shiva individually. From Krishna Yajur Veda, the Lord Shiva is said to be appearing as Surya as well as many other forms. The former is supposed to be starting point where the latter is supposed to be the peak of divine consciousness according to many Vedic intellectuals.

Finally, being a Vedic scholar myself, I give what I understand from our daily rituals. This is the 51st birth day of Adya brahma and we just passed the noon for him. A kalpa is his day time, during night he rests and will not create/sustain. So, if you consider active kalpa, it's only one. If you consider actual time, it's two kalpa's. This is just another interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guttina (talk • contribs) 20:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Math Doesn't Work Here

I've been trying to make sense of this but the numbers don't add up at all. If one mahayuga = 4.32 million years, and there are 1000 mahayugas in one DAY of Brahma, and a full cycle of creation = 100 YEARS of Brahma, then the complete cycle has to be way way way more than 4.32 billion years. But I also checked reference #2 and it doesn't say billion, it says million, i.e. the earth is the approximate age of 1 mahayuga (have no idea if that's right anyways). So as far as I can tell this article is not usable as it is and needs serious help.Yonderboy (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yonderboy, yes the article needs work, you are correct. Please tell me specifically which section of the article you are referring to so we can try to fix it. The opening section states that the life of Brahma is more than 311 trillion years. --Kbob (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference #2 says 4,320 million years = 4.32 billion. They failure i=of your math prolly comes from this misreading. I corrected the article's day of Brahma length to 4.32b Alatari (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, if you see anything else that needs correcting please feel free to jump in.--Kbob (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

``````````````````````` Hi this is Jagan. 11/11/2010. 1) I have just gone through this article. For me also maths does not work there seems to be difference in years, can anyone suggest if i am correct Or wrong. year i am getting out of the values provided in the article is 4.29 billion years / 4294 million years. below my calculation is : It is mentioned sum of 4 yugas/era is 1(one) Chaturyuga, i.e Satya Yuga - 1,728,000 + Treta Yuga - 1,296,000 + Dwapara Yuga - 864,000 + Kali Yuga - 432,000 = 4,320,000 human years OR Chaturyuga. AND, it also reads there are 71 Chaturyuga in 1(One) MANU, so 71 * 4,320,000 = 306,720,000 Finally One Brahma day is equal to 14 MANUs, which means 14 * 306,720,000 = 4,294,080,000 which is contrary to 4.32 Billion years.

2) Can anyone tell me how many days does one Brahma year has (365 days) or it is different.

Thank you--202.128.96.225 (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC) `````````````````````` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.96.225 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

maths doesn't work... see the article on manvantara: 1 kalpa means 14 manvantaras which in turn means 14*71 chaturyugas... and that is approx 4.3*10^9 human years... and one chaturyuga is 4,320,000 years... and one brahma year is 360 kalpas... kalpa is one brahma day... if you feel this is right change it... and there have been references to additional human years between manvantaras... that might be completeing the 4.32 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjukammath (talk • contribs) 17:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced / off topic content moved here for insertion

The below was taken off the main article Heaven as it appears to be related to Yama. If appropriate please add wortwhile content to this article where it is more appropriate. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Below the earthly plane are seven nether planes:

1. Atala
2. Vitala
3. Sutala
4. Talatala
5. Mahatala
6. Rasatala
7. Pataal

Below these are 28 hellish planes (according to Bhagavata Purana), below which is the Garbhodaka ocean with waters of devastation. Depending on good and bad activities (karma) on an earthly plane, a soul either ascends up to enjoy heavenly delights or goes down to fiery hellish planes depending on sins performed which are judged by the god of death & justice, Yama, who presides along the 28 hells. After the results of good and bad deeds (karma) are delivered, souls return to the earthly plane again as human or animal depending on desires and karma. Thus the cycle of birth and death.

Eternal liberation or freedom from the cycle of birth and death is called Moksha, which can be obtained only in human life by turning attention inwards for uniting the soul with the Supreme Being (Parabrahman) through Yoga - Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga etc.

Liberation (Moksha) is of five types as described in Puranas:

1. Sayujya: Merging into the oneness with the impersonal aspect of the Lord, and hence freedom from all material anxiety.
2. Salokya: Attaining residence in the eternal abode of the Lord, called Vaikuntha, beyond material universal creation, beyond the six material heavens, a place where only surrendered devotees of the Lord go.
3. Saristi: Attaining same opulences as the Lord in His abode.
4. Sarupya: Attaining same beautiful form as the Lord in His abode.
5. Samipya: Attaining close association of the Lord in His abode.

This abode of Lord is briefly described in the Bhagavad Gita (15.6), "That supreme abode of Mine is not illumined by the sun or moon, nor by fire or electricity. Those who reach it never return to this material world". Further descriptions of Vaikuntha are in the Puranas where the Lord's devotees reside eternally in loving relationship with the Lord.

Furthermore, Vaikuntha residency has following categories:

1. Shanta Rasa: In neutral relationship of great awe, reveration and constant thinking of the Lord.
2. Dasya Rasa: Serving the Lord personally to please the Lord as master and soul as servant.
3. Sakhya Rasa: Serving the Lord as an intimate friend (formal, informal, and many other types).
4. Vatsalya Rasa: Serving the Lord from a superior position as a caretaker (like motherly or fatherly relations).
5. Madhurya/Sringara Rasa: Serving the Lord as an intimate conjugal lover including all previous rasas, the most sweet of all, with many further categories. In this rasa the Jiva takes the form of a gopi. Within this Rasa a Jiva can chose to be a Sakhi, a Nitya-Sakhi, or a Priya-Sakhi. A Nitya-Sakhi is a Jiva that does not wish to have amorous relations with Krishna. They are also called Manjaris and are younger than the Priya-Sakhis. Priya-Sakhis on the other hand do occasionally have amorous relationships with Krishna at the bequest of Radha.

End paste In ictu oculi (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Numbers in speed of light calculation seem "cooked" to get right number

Can anyone provide a cite for the claim that 30.3 Kala = 1 Muhurta (other sources, including the Muhurta wiki page, say 30 Kala = 1 Muhurta), or that 1 Yojana = 9.09 miles (this page says that "Yojana is an ancient measure of distance, where one yojana roughly equals to 8 to 10 miles")? Without such precise numbers, the corresponding speed (which is actually stated in the quote in question as the speed of the Sun, not the speed of light) is not nearly as close a match to current estimates of light speed (with 30 Kala = 1 Muhurta, half a nimesh becomes 0.106666... seconds, and with 2202 yojana being between 2202*8 and 2202*10, the speed works out to between 165150 miles/second and 206438 miles/second). Hypnosifl (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• I removed section as hoax/OR/cherry picking Bulwersator (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it might merit a brief mention in Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts#Vedic texts (with a reference to a published work making the argument like this one or this one) but this sort of advocacy of the "Vedic writings prefigured modern science!" view doesn't really belong here. Hypnosifl (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be more about rabbits. PiCo (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Change to Article Title

I would like to propose that this article be titled Vedic and Indian Cosmology. I do not believe that this cosmology is exclusive to the Hindu religion as indicated in the current title. A good part of the article concerns it self with the Vedas which although they are considered by Hindus to be religious scipture they are also consider by many historians, anthropologists, scientists and scholars to be ancient texts of India that have their own integrity and origin, independent of the Hindu religion. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? --Keithbob (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

yes i agree or else add these, 1. [ajativada] 2. [Mimamsa] eternilism 3. [samkhya]-[yoga] theory 4. [nyaya]-[vaisheshika] [atomic] theory 5. [lokayat] theory 6. [sasvatvada] 7. [folk hinduism] myths Pratpandey13 (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove Graphics

I would like to remove the graphics (red circle and items below it) as they have no relevance to the article and do not reference any terms mentioned within it.--Keithbob (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Since 10 days have passed without any objections I have removed the three graphics which had no direct relevance to the points in the article. --Keithbob (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Keithbob: Thanks for your work on this. However I think you need to add back the graphic on the Hindu timescale as it is very much a part of hindu cosmology as it gives an Idea from milliseconds since creation to the entire life cycle of Brahma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.252.156 (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Big Bang Theory and Hindu Cosmology

I am removing the paragraph on the Big Bang Theory for two reasons: 1. It does not appear to have any relevance in an article on Hindu Cosmology 2. Most of the paragraph was original research WP:NOR making comparisons to the two theories. If someone can site a reference or source for this comparison, then I have no objections to it being added back in. --Keithbob (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Guess what, it's back! And it certainly does look like original research. This is completely unnecessary because there are a number of sources making the Big Bang connection that could be cited. This should be done in a section coming after the cosmology per se, which greatly predated the genesis of Big Bang as a theory. LADave (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Be careful guys!

Theres a few claims here that are a bit fishy from a secular viewpoint (That hindu cosmology is closest to modern scientific cosmology. closest compared to what? says who? Where?). Theres nothing wrong with being a believer in theological claims, but you need to be sure that the statement holds true regardless of viewpoint as per wikipedias NPOV rules. Try and prefix statements with things like "Hindus claim...." , and add citations to those claims. Also remember Hinduism is quite a broad field of differing views compared to the middle-east religions (Judaism/christianity/islam), and it might be worth explaining to us non hindus how this diversity of views in these topics works so we can understand it better. Namaste! 59.167.111.154 (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Information Lacking

the article is just about some peculier and perticular form of hinduism, totaly biased and favour of theist-vedanta I would like to add these suggestions 1. ajativada 2. Mimamsa eternalism 3. samkhya-yoga theory 4. nyaya-vaisheshika atomic theory 5. lokayat theory 6. sasvatvada 7. folk hinduism myths Pratpandey13 (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

For now, I removed the lines, that required citation, those that included that "hiranyagarbha" is brahma. Some sources.

"Brahman in the primary sense in other Sruti passages. Hence we conclude from this that the Self refers to the Supreme Self or Para Brahman and not to Hiranyagarbha", Brahma Sutras: Text, Word-to-word Meaning, Translation, and Commentary.

"HE Lord Parameshthi is Brahma — not the Creator Hiranyagarbha, but the soul who in this kalpa has climbed up to be the instrument of Creation, the first in time of the Gods, the Pitamaha or original and general Prajapati", The Upanishads: Texts, Translations and Commentaries. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Mahayuga and Chaturyugas are confusing. 1 Kalpa = Brahama's 1 Divine Day = 14 Manvantaras = 14*71 Chaturyugas + 15 sandhikals = 1000 Chaturyugas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.112.69.75 (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Life of Brahma

I don't think that 8.64 billion years (one day and night of Brahma) represents the lifespan of the universe. The life of the universe is more accurately described as the life of Brahma, which lasts ~311.04 trillion years.

See this source:

https://books.google.com/books?id=E_6-JbUiHB4C&pg=PA496&lpg=PA496&dq=end+of+life+of+brahma&source=bl&ots=FhoWDIE5C0&sig=3VjXYO1gPuER_oYkvEOd-QMU1aY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiopY6I18_KAhUikYMKHeVmAlcQ6AEISjAK#v=onepage&q=end%20of%20life%20of%20brahma&f=false

According to the author: "With the completion of a life of Brahma the universe disappears together with Brahma and a new universe with a new Brahma appears after a hiatus of equal length." This suggests that the life of the universe goes hand-in-hand with the life of Brahma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawangy (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

[1] doesn't talk about 311.04 trillions btw. Since below sections provide more detailed information I have removed the figure from lead. Capitals00 (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capitals00:

That is only a part of the page. Take a look at the full version of the book you linked, page 174 (page 188 of the pdf as a whole): https://nomorebiggov.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/lost-disc.pdf

It does in fact say 311,040 billion years, which is equivalent to 311.04 trillion years. It also clearly states that 8.64 billion is only the time it takes for a day and night of Brahma. The life of the universe goes hand in hand with that of Brahma, not with a day and night of Brahma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawangy (talk • contribs) 3:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Unwanted deletion

@Ms Sarah Welch: The information you deleted was the most important. People won't get that much valuable information anywhere else. It's very heartbreaking how you are targeting Hinduism. If you want proof of all this I can provide and everything you deleted comes under Cosmology.So you can't say it doesn't come under Cosmology Anmolbhat (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the current version. Yes you can write more if you want to, but don't forget to add sources with your information. Capitals00 (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Anmolbhat: Please do not restore content without adding reliable sources such as you did here. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Your ability to agree with this strange version does not exempt the need for verifiability or reliable sources! Please do not encourage or participate in disruptive behavior. If you can find reliable sources, you are welcome to add back the supported content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems that translations can have different wording but content is legit. I have readded some with better sources. Capitals00 (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

And I am not sure what Winged Blades of Godric meant from his edit,[2] which removed multiple reliable sources including "Amir Muzur, Hans-Martin source" with the reason "no reviews poor if any", he should better know that we don't need public reviews to recognize what is WP:RS, but publisher and LIT Verlag is undoubtedly a reliable publisher. Capitals00 (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry.Neither James Anderson nor the publishing house-Inkstall solutions seems to fit WP:RS.The same is applicable for Bryan E. Penprase, a non-notable scholar whose lone work seems to be writing an utterly non-notable book(though published by a reputable publishing house).Thus,I have reverted your edits till some third party(preferably Welch/Sitush etc. who are enough comfortable in the domain) join in.Feel free to re-add only the LIT Verlag source(as I already said in my last revert!) and the one you added from Colum. Press.Winged Blades <sup>Godric</sup> 10:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

You are engaging in disruptive editing and you don't understand what is WP:RS, we don't need wikipedia pages of every single author to recognize them as reliable sources. How about you rely on your own than relying on the opinion of other editors? This page is not WP:OWNED by anyone that we need clarification of specific editors whether an obvious reliable source passes WP:RS or not. Capitals00 (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please don't put your words in my mouth.I don't know what led you to equate notability with a WP page!Your second argument could be easily said about you too!I seeked a clarification because they are knowledgable enough in the domain.And please avoid needless templating.In the meantime how about countering the issues I raised in my last post?Also, the onus of inclusion is on the editor who wishes to include the content Winged Blades <sup>Godric</sup> 11:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Since you have already agreed that Columbia University Press and LIT Verlag are reliable sources, while Bryann E. Penprase is "non notable" but Springer is reliable source, there are just no issues left because these sources are supporting the entire section already. You seem to be asking for additional verification. Capitals00 (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyway the article has now Inner Traditions / Bear & Co[3] and Motilal Banarsidass[4] as sources. Capitals00 (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00:--Well, I don't know if I was hazy--but I was supporting the inclusion of LIT Verlag and Colum. Press from my first reversion.And since you seem to have no problems with my last deletion of sources, I take that the issue is resolved.Cheerio!As a sidenote, your comment on the AN thread could be more useful, if you comment on the issue at hand rather than drawing relations to this one.Winged Blades <sup>Godric</sup> 11:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Authorhouse is not RS

Anmolbhat: Authorhouse is WP:SPS. Please do not add website/blogs/SPS or other non-RS derived content to this or other wikipedia articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio

Anmolbhat: You recent edits pasted large parts of a copyrighted work (leave aside WP:Questionable). Your cooperation is requested with WP:Copyvio policy. @Diannaa: Do we need to hard delete? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=DETDDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT103&lpg=PT103&dq=311+trillion+40+billion+years+book&source=bl&ots=3FyFQw61Ry&sig=Ad4Rbz_GfMlSj9eYT9VmBnWyIvA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKruCjzcHUAhXMRo8KHdxLAM8Q6AEIMTAC#v=onepage&q=311%20trillion%2040%20billion%20years%20book&f=false

Can I use this page as a source

Anmolbhat (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No. Because it is a self-publish source. The publisher's website states, "Self-Publish Your Book with Partridge India Today. Welcome to Partridge India, a supported self-publishing imprint powered by Author Solutions LLC". Please see WP:SPS and WP:RS for why, and what sources you can use in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with my content and Source

@Ms Sarah Welch: As you deleted my content. I want to know what's wrong with it Gyan publishing is not Self Publishing And the Age of Earth as well as Universe is a part of Cosmology.IndianEditor (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

IndianEditor: I already answered what's wrong with Gyan Publishing in the edit comment. Click the blue link and please read it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Cosmology, not astronomical calculations in a text

IndianEditor: I have reverted the table of astronomical calculations. Cosmology is the study origin and development of the universe. This is not the Yuga article. This article already discusses Brahma, the 4,320,000 years, etc. There is no need to repeat. Please see MOS and WP:WWIN guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Wrong duration of a Kalpa

The text at two locations states that a day of Brahma would last for 4,32 Million years. That is wrong, it is the duration of a Catur- or Mahayuga. A Kalpa (day of Brahma = 2 Kalpa) has the duration of 1000 Mahayugas thus 4.320.000.000 (4,32 billion) years (see at first Rigveda 4.58.3 = Yajurveda Samhita 17, 91).--80.133.241.186 (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

According to Mahabharata Purana 1 year = 360 days, as per Bhagabat Gita their is four Yuga (Satya Yuga, Drapar Yuga, Treta Yuga and Kali Yuga). Satya Yuga is equal to 17,28,000 years ( 4 times of Kali Yuga), Drapar Yuga is equal to 12,96,000 years ( 3times of Kali Yuga), Treta Yuga is equal to 8,64,000 years ( 2 times of Kali Yuga) and Kali Yuga is equal to 4,32,000 years. One Maha Yuga or Chatur Yuga is equal to 43,20,000 years. 1 kalpa = 1000 Chatur Yuga or Maha Yuga = 43,20,000 x 1000 = 4,32,00,00,000 years or 4.32 Billions year 1 kalpa is only day time of Bramha not a full day, So i day of Bramha = 2 kalpa = 8.64 billion years Bramha live for 100 years and the position is changing after that and another Bramha is took the place.(Adhya Bramhana) So Bramha 100 years = 100 x 360 x 8.64 billion years = 311040 billion years which is our universe lifetime. Current time of our universe as per Bramhayu is Dvithiya Paraarthe, Swetha Varaaha Kalpe, Vaivasvatha Manvanthare, Ashtavimsathi thame, Kaliyuge Prathame Paathe means 51th Birth Year of Bramha and this is 1st day's Kalpa, 27th Chatur Yug are gone this is 28th Chatur Yug's 4th Yug or Kali Yug Running and This is Kali Yug's 5122 years Running on 2020 AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4061:511:e230:cd37:d1b0:6645:95a3 (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This was fixed sometime in the past so a Kalpa (day of Brahma) is 4.32 billion years and a Mahayuga is 4.32 million years. Jroberson108 (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiverse in Hinduism

The Multiverse in Hinduism seems to be a POV pushing that the Hindu cosmology 'predicted' some modern science. The actually connection is not clearly stated, rather it just quotes the holy text. Also according to my layman understanding of the multiverse, the quoted text doesn't really seem to be the same thing. Ashmoo (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course. But POV-pushing is the almost universal state of religious articles in Wikipedia. Rursus dixit. (<sup>m</sup>bork<sup>3</sup>!) 17:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone provide the original sanskrit text for the multiverse claim ? ChandlerMinh (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Technically they are not the same in all aspects, only some. The multiverse theory may have the same unlimited universes aspect, but that theory has the living entities linked across universes where each living entity is fated to make certain choices. Basically, for all the possible choices you could have made in your life (past and future), there is another universe where you made or will make that choice, where all possible combinations of choices in your life exist as a combination of all universes. They are described as dimensional or quantum universes because the living entities are linked.

In Hinduism, the Puranas (e.g. Bhagavata Purana) describes innumerable universes existing simultaneously like the bubbles stacked at the edge of the ocean's shoreline. They are cyclically created and destroyed for eternity. Living entities (jivatmas) are unique and exist in one place at one time, embodied one body at a time in the cycle of reincarnation until they achieve liberation. The living entities in each universe are not linked or fated. In fact, each universe is described as different, with ours being the smallest with our Brahma having only four heads. There are similar positions in each universe like Brahma, Indra, and Manu, where a different jiva can take that birth, similar to the position of a king, president, governor, etc., but each acts based on their own desires influenced by karmic reactions through the three gunas (maya) unless self-realized. Jroberson108 (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Section renamed from "Multiverse" to "Many universes" so that there is no confusion nor a need to explain the differences. Jroberson108 (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)