Talk:Arti (Hinduism)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Worship or homage?

Regarding the Aarthi page, wanted to know whether you could add a clarification whether the rite is an act of worship of deity, as in the Catholic latria, or merely an act of homage.

See my page: http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/aarticontroversy.html Lucio Mas 14:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aarti is worship. And don't visit Lucio Mas' page; it's full of crap and hatred. Armyrifle 19:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics

I am adding the lyrics for aarti. --Shell 20:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am done. It might be a little off and I needed to make a few minor corrections.

Image

A boy in traditional Hindu clothes with forehead markings holds a tray with a burning light and a pot of kum kum powder on it.

I was wondering if anyone could tell me if this photo depicts aarati? MishaPan 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems he is holding a thali (plate) for
aarti, but not performing the ritual itself! --Ekabhishek (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Should be renamed Aartii

Why Aarti, whereas the Hindi spelling is aartii ? Aarti (आर्ति) is not an entry in the Hindi Wikipedia. Indeed, you have to look up the word under Aartii (आरती).

etymology

Seems to me the word can't descend both from Skt aradhana and from Skt aa+rati. —Tamfang (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about brushes

Do the brushes in the image at the right have a specific name in Sanskrit/Hindi? Is their waving part of the Aarti ritual or is it a separate ritual? Is this used in Bengal only, or is it all over India? Wiki-uk (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is called a chamara Fly-whisk and can be seen also as an attribute of some deities like Varahi or used by attendants or consorts to fan the main deity as in File:AshtaSiddhi.jpg. It is not an integral part of aarti and is a separate ritual in itself. The chamara is used for fanning the deity at any time (not especially aarti, but may accompany aarti). --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

Aarti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Stronger consensus needed to determine whether we should accept current usage or long-term significance as the determining factor for the primary topic, per

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 16:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

– Clearly the primary topic see the page views.

talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 12:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 14:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Strong Support the argument given by proposer is absolutely correct and i support this move Uttarpradeshi (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a sensible proposal, but there isn't a primary topic with respect to usage. We've got data about how many times each link on a (dab) page is followed by readers (the WP:Clickstream). The last month for which I've got easily accessible data is March: then the link to Arti (Hinduism) was clicked 15 times in total, with an unknown number of clicks for the other links (if it's less than ten, it doesn't get included in the dataset). If you compare that with the pageviews for the dab page itself for the same period (324 [1]), it becomes clear that only a small proportion of visitors to the dab have clicked on that link. There's not a very a different picture that emerges from other months: November 2020 was higher (48), but still small compared to the total views, January 2020 it was clicked 15 times (with Arti Singh getting 10 clicks), and in January 2019 it got <10 clicks, when the only link followed more than 9 times was that for the place in Russia. – Uanfala (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:Uanfala I just cant understand why are you showing/arguing on past data, rather we have the latest data, still if you dont believe on "daily" data, you can see this, this page is the primary from almost past 1 year, and that is a more than sufficient time to show that now this page is a primary topic PERMANENTLY. Uttarpradeshi (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've used the data from six months ago because it's the most recent one that's easily accessible for me. If you'd like to, you can dig up more recent data from the WP:Clickstream (but if it is indeed the "permanent" primary topic, then it wouldn't matter which period we're looking at, would it?). The data you're providing is the pageviews: they show how many times each title has been viewed (regardless of the reader paths that led to those views: most actually come from incoming links, internal and external, not from reader searches). Pageviews are one of the several tools to gauge the relative significance of the topics concerned, but they don't contain much information about usage (see Wikipedia:Pageviews and primary topics). Again, your proposal makes sense in terms of long-term significance, but not in terms of usage: as I've tried to show above, only a small proportion of readers landing on the dab page proceed to follow the link to this article. – Uanfala (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note:
WikiProject Hinduism has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 14:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Sock comments stricken off — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gaudiya Vaishnavism Section

Hi folks, the Gaudiya Vaishnavism section doesn't have any cited sources. Can anyone provide any sources to support this section? Also, the description of the arti echoes what is described about the practice of the arti in the "practice" section but the paragraph asserts that "In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, arti refers to the whole puja ritual, of which offering the lamp is only one part." This suggests that there is some difference between general Hindu practice of arti and Gaudiya Vaishnav practice of arti-- can someone find a source to support this implied statement? Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arti_(Hinduism)&oldid=1210359593"