Talk:Kaushiki
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Skyerise in topic @chronikhiles I challenge you
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
good formatting
edit+1, would read again
Vaishnav Fanatics
editLakshmi Tantra is a Fake Book created by Some Sectarian Vaishnav to claim Maa Hemavati's avatars as Lakshmi. Kanishka Sajwan (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- The Reason I am stating so is -
- 1. Lakshmi Tantra is written much after the compilation of Markandeya Purana in 3rd century i.e. It is complied in 12th century.
- 2. Lakshmi Tantra contains some elements which goes against the Mahapuranas( Devi Bhagwatam, Markandeya Purana, Shiva Purana)like Lakshmi saying herself as Mahishasura Mardini and Kaushiki Mahasaraswati.
- 3. The Mahapuranas Devi Bhagwatam Markandeya Purana and Shiva Purana confirm that the trio of Mahakali Yoganidra Mahalakshmi Mahishasur Mardini and Kaushiki Mahasaraswati are the manifestations of Maa Hemavati Durga Bhawani only. Kanishka Sajwan (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@chronikhiles I challenge you
edit@Chronikhiles I challenge you to debate with me on talks... If you are not a coward Vaishnava you will accept my debate challenge. Kanishka Sajwan (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Grow up. You're clearly not familiar with Wikipedia policy regarding vandalism and POV edits. Go familiarise yourself with it first, learn to be respectful to other editors, and you might actually make at least one contribution that'll stay on this encyclopaedia. Cheers. Chronikhiles (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have reverted your edits. Reliably cited content stays on this encyclopaedia, your beliefs on whether they're real or fake are irrelevant. I won't engage in an edit war with you if you delete the content again. But let me warn you, if you can't engage in an objective and respectful manner, rest assured you won't be editing here long. Chronikhiles (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- And I have reverted your edits as well. You may not obliterate other points of view. If there are points of view which are missing for which there are reliable secondary sources (not religious texts), then those should be added to the article without removing other points of view which are supported by sources. Skyerise (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)