Talk:Shabda

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Language Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of language Linguistics: Philosophy of language This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I removed a boldly misleading phrase from this article that is so dishonest that I simply could not leave it in. Apparently, according to the person who composed the section and without any documentation or reference to support his assertions - "Word" and "Holy Spirit" and Logos are all the same. The author furthermore equates all three of these factors with Naam. I removed this as it is not true. It may appear very entertaining to collapses rich and complicated elements of extremely divergent religious traditions into one single concept. However in order to accomplish this the process should be ethical and factually based. I would like to see some documentation inserted by the author to support his radical theses. It should also be set forth as something to be proven and not part of a list of given facts. This is very manipulative of the reader and very misleading. The Holy Spirit is a facet of the Supreme God in the Christian faith and can not be likened to Naam. Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God are all one single Being. This can be likened to the three sides of a cube which although distinct from one another are all integral parts of the cube. Or it can likened to the three roles of a man, father, son and husband. Although these are distinct roles, yet they can all remain part of one single being. Since the Holy Spirit is inseparable from God or from Jesus, how can he be Naam? Although it is the Holy Spirit which imparts the manifold gifts which can lead to sainthood, miracles and spiritual gifts such as the speaking of tongues, the Holy Spirit is not primarily associated with sound, (whether originating from within or without) with prayer or with chanting. So I don't see the connection to Naam or Shabd. Since He IS God Himself, He can not be likened to the mere heightened states of awareness brought on by spiritual practices of other religions, however transcendental or favorable such states may be. In theory, he may be the originator of such states in other religions. But that is not what the author of the article has asserted. As regards the author's comments on the Word, in Christianity, the Word refers to Jesus, who is identified as the incarnation of the Word of God. The Book of John tells us: In the beginning was the Word... Such statements that have been proposed in this article reflect a serious lack of investigation into the other religions which the author has attempted to synthesize.

The term

Done.

talk 04:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

This article is making good progress; thanks to RDF. 01:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC) Sevadar.

Thanks. Usually, only the first reference to an article is wikilinked. Also, an article usually is not added to the "See also" list if it is wikilinked in the body.

talk 02:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]