Talk:Agni

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

Agni, the son of...[edit]

Brahma or Dyaus Pita? Bigshotnews 20:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs)

Guess the element fire-agni came from brahma, while agni (deva) came as son of aditi and kashyapa- Sandtrailer (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

clarification please[edit]

a) what is the 'it' in this sentence " The ancient Indians recognized it as the power of heat ..."? Previously Agni has been referred to as 'he'. b) What does this mean: "Agni has made the transition into the Hindu pantheon of gods, without losing his importance"? What 'transition'? c) What is the source for the etymology? Do we need to know so many Slavic words for 'fire'? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed but Slavic words retained respecting the effort of the editor who had then sought to improve this page.Aditya soni (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite BADLY needed[edit]

This is full of poorly written, out-of-context, POV nonsense. Lots of ip edits from ESL editors have left this barely readable. I think this page needs a rewrite desperately. Any thoughts? @Joshua Jonathan: @VictoriaGrayson: @RhinoMind: @Kautilya3:? Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember an administrator commenting that they had given up on this article... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking great. Sorry I haven't been around to help. I've been drawn into a bit of a debate on Brahma if you have any insight. Some day I hope to have your chops with this wiki editing.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. I'll leave the fine-tuning to the ones with the inside-knowledge. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed User:Joshua Jonathan’s edits of Agni. His lack of proper understanding of the subject has made him strip away all flesh and sinews and expose the whiteness of the bones. You cannot understand Agni if you have not lived in the place and environment where it is worshipped, even then there is the need of a guru who has experienced Agni to guide you. The spoken or written words appear meaningless until the time they are properly heard, read and understood. The learned people in our country aver that each word has five distinct meanings after understanding which five meanings the essence becomes revealed to be grasped. For a person of ordinary learning and intelligence the act of breathing is merely the act of inhaling and exhaling air but for a truly learned person it is the ultimate medium through which the body unites with the soul as the two major currents, Pingala and Ida, responsible for all the mind and body functions in our system. You have simply not understood Agni, and therefore, kindly restore this article and invite a truly learned person to review, improve and rewrite it. I wonder what the members of Project Hinduism/Mythology etc; are waiting for? Why don’t they step in? Tarun marwaha (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See above; they approve. This is an encyclopedia, not a religious study-course. Anyone who wants a thorough understanding of Agni should indeed turn to a guru. The rest, which is the large majority who reads Wikipedia, wants a comprehensive, readable article. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The page was unreadable to the uninitiated before. A wiki article isn't written for Agni worshipers to further their esoteric knowledge on the subject (for this there is only Guru, experience, and primary sources like the Vedas); it is written for the layman to comprehend and engage with the big picture. The devotional aspects of Agni are undeniably important, but beyond the scope of a humble encyclopedia. As such you would not find any of the removed material in Encyclopedia Britannica either. The majority of the changes were necessary to create a comprehensive article that is approachable for the amateur.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User: Joshua Jonathan and User:Iṣṭa Devatā I do not agree with your views. Vivekananda had once remarked – “wherever there are qualities, these qualities have been reflected upon the subject”, - this being an undeniable fact onus is upon us to explain the truth about the substance and each of the qualities reflected there upon. If I were to talk about Prakrti I cannot avoid explaining it as cosmic intelligence or as consciousness of individuality, how and why. This principle has been followed in many wiki-pages e.g. Plasma (physics), which is certainly not for a layman alone. Therefore, whosoever rewrites this article must have a thorough understanding of Agni which understanding must be reflected through the comprehensiveness of the article itself. This is my prayer. I am not happy with the present make-up which is lifeless, dull and ordinary.Tarun marwaha (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize entirely, though I'm afraid you're disappointment is more with nature of academia and encyclopedias, which are not meant for expert references. No encyclopedia would include the type of material that is being removed. Encyclopedias are meant, mostly, to be dull, ordinary and easily approachable. They are not meant to support or undermine anyone's views or beliefs which you must appreciate is a delicate task. The further reading section is where you may direct people to the information that you want to inspire them or that has inspired you that may not meet the standards for inclusion here. These articles are not meant to inspire faith or even to appear as if written by an insider. Things written from strongly emic perspectives are generally not encyclopedic enough for inclusion. Advanced topics on a science article like you mentioned above are largely filled with objective and 'lifeless' information and so are still encyclopedic. That said, many scientific articles are written in overly professional jargon and become unreadable like Agni was. These also need to be cleaned up (a constant task on wikipedia). I might suggest perusing the Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion to better understand the obligations of academic writing on religious material (it's easy to find a pdf copy with google). In particular, the article on hermeneutics in the RCSR can be helpful. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rishi Parashara Shaktya reminds us that ‘svar’ connects the three upper planes with the three lower planes at the plane characterised by ‘satyam’, and the Truth in movement is ‘rtam’. I was stressing upon this kind of connection which existed but now does not exist in the revised version. It has been nice knowing you User: Iṣṭa Devatā. Regards. Tarun marwaha (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iṣṭa Devatā, in the hands of those who know nothing about Agni and its significance the page is losing its rightful importance. Do something to save the page. Thanks.Tarun marwaha (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latino ![edit]

Ignis. ! Paolobod (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction[edit]

Story’s from the mind 45.215.255.45 (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose merging Anala into Agni. The former article explicitly says it's essentially another name for Agni, and says basically nothing else.— Moriwen (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected Anala to Agni. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agni&oldid=1216895058"