2010 - A New Year to Improve

[saidevo]

namaste Satay, Yajvan and others.

vidyA-saMkhyA--Scholarship Points

I have some ideas about implementing the vidyA-saMkhyA--Scholarship Points system. Let me share them here for further discussion.

As I said in post #7, every member should have this vidyA-saMkhyA besides his/her Reputation Points--kIrti-saMkhya, as a possible index of assessment of expression of ideas, innate wisdom, and knowledge of scriptures.

My own RP remaining persistently--even embarrassingly--among the highest, I often make a self-appraisal of what I really possess by way of knowledge, scholarship and wisdom to deserve such abundant grace of reputation points that I receive repeatedly from maybe twenty or less members who are happy with my posts.

I would like to share something from what I know of myself, which would throw some light on the necessity of our identifying and recognizing HDF's most learned and wise scholars such as Yajvan, Atanu, Ganesh Prasad, Sudarshan, Arjun, and many others among the senior members, and possibly many among the newcomers that I don't readily know of, who are reasonably well-read in the Hindu ShAstras, more Sanskrit-literate, wiser and practice dhyAna--meditation and the niyama--restraints in daily life.

When Sarabhanga was present here, he was generally acknowledged to the most learned (although the finality of his words were many a time questioned), and naturally commanded the highest score of Reputation Points which was in alignment with his scholarship and wisdom. In his absence, I find Yajvan to be gradually taking his place, displaying even larger wisdom and humility, and less emotion than SB. Atanu is one-pointed, with some really deep learning, personal insights and original thinking, although I find him to be easily upset at contradictory views. Ganesh Prasad is a scholar with wide and deep knowledge in Hindu scriptures although he only shares them occasionally with us. In the past, Sudarshan, Arjun and many others that I may not readily know, have done exceptionally well in sharing their knowledge and wisdom.

Among the later and more recently joined members, the names of Devotee, Eastern Mind, EkAnta, KD Gupta, smaranam, brahman, Harjas Kaur and Spiritual Seeker readily come to mind, as known from the scriptural and wisdom content of their posts. I am sure I have omitted many other names, and this is one reason I want an index of scholarship points!

Where do I stand in my own assessment against the larger-than-life image of scholarship and wisdom that my high RP creates here?

Well, I have stated time and again that my own svAdhyAya--study of scriptures, is nowhere upto the mark; I pursue my studies only intermittently. I am not much Sanskrit-literate either. Although Yajvan and some other members easily find me to 'speak with wisdom' in many posts, personally I know that most of my posts are by way of compilations, recasts and translations; that I am more of an ardent researcher (with some original/lateral thinking on what I find) than a scholar of the scriptures. But I do take sincere efforts to recast (not just cut and paste) the material I post, expand the quotes where necessary, make the piece more readable with its key points presented conspicuously, give the credit where it's due, and add my own impressions about the author's key points, wherever I can.

With this background, let us discuss what we need to have in an index of vidyA-saMkhya--scholarship points, and the ways to accord it:

Requirements to earn scholarship points

Below is a list of some requirements for a post for consideration of awarding scholarship points. I have also suggested sample unit scores to accord where specific requirements are satisfied in a post.

Members may add any others, to enable Satay and Yajvan and other people at the helm to arrive at a final decision.

Clarity of expression

• 10 pts. for clear indication of the author's POV
• 10 pts. for clarity in the structure of presentation
• 05 pts. for words and phrases used

Wisdom in expression

where the member adds value by showing innate wisdom which can be expressed in many ways:

• 10 pts. for personal experiences
• 10 pts. for a good analogy or illustration
• 10 pts. for efforts of reconciliation of conflicting views
• 05 pts. for any other

Use of Unicode Sanskrit Text

We need to appreciate use of Unicode Sanskrit Text, especially in the quotes from scriptures, for all the strenuous efforts it takes to do it, for the willingness to learn and use Sanskrit, and the original look of what is quoted.

• 10 pts. for using scriptural quotes with precise textual reference
• 05 pts. for using scriptural quotes with only vague textual reference
• 10 pts. for padArtha--word by word meaning of the quote
• 05 pts. for using transliteration of the quotes
• 05 pts. for using English translation of the quotes

• 20 pts. for dhAtu--root analysis of words and phrases
• 10 pts. for explanation of words and phrases outside the quotes

Brevity and Context

Quotes from the scriptures are easy to give from the Net sources, in these days of copy-paste culture; and more often than not, unnecessary text is given surrounding the quote in context. We need to recognize the context and censure the verbosity that carries no explanation.

• 10 pts. for precise and contextual scriptural quotes
• -05 pts. for long and unnessary quotes surrounding contextual reference without any explanation for their need.

Original/explanatory articles: on the books of/on scripture or specific scriptural texts

Sometimes, a member may post an article about the content of a scripture and the approach to it. Or a specific textual portion in the scripture such as a mahAvAkya might be taken up and explained in detail. We need to appreciate any narrations and explanations with the member's orignal thinking that adds value to the conventional knowledge.

• 05 pts. for synopsis/introduction of a book of scripture
• 10 pts. for recasts of texts and essays or portiions thereof, giving member's clear understanding of the subject.
• 10 pts. for exposition of verses and passages that add to conventional knowledge.
• 20 pts. for translation of publications in other languages.

Knowledge about other Indian religious texts and spiritual works

• 15 pts. for clearly-presented knowledge about other religious scripts
• 10 pts. for using quotes to effectively prove a point of view

Knowledge about other Abrahamic religious texts and spiritual works

• 10 pts. for clearly-presented knowledge about other religious scripts
• 10 pts. for using quotes to effectively prove a point of view

Ways to accord scholarship points

The Reputation Points system is subjective: the more the rep. points the more a member can accord to a post. Any member can accord rep. points. To accord them, a member clicks a button and then optionally enters a text in the text box that pops up.

As against this, the vidyA-saMkhyA--scholarship points needs system to be objective. Only members with a minimum required scholarship points can accord these points, but they can accord it to any post of any member, subject to the above requirements.

When an eligible member chooses to accord scholarship points to a specific post, a button is clicked, a new window pops up and a form is presented that contains the above requirements as check boxes where they are distinct (for selection of many boxes), and radio-buttons where they are related (so only one can be selected)

• Any member having the required minimum scholarship points or more can accord these points to a post from any other member.

• The member accords the points by using the check boxes and radio-buttons in the scholarship reputation form and submits it.

• The sample points given above are only unit scores. A suitable weight might be added to them based on the present scholarship points of a member who accords points to a post.

• Unlike the rep.points system where a member can accord points to the same member only after 'spreading the reputation' amongst five other members, the scholarship points system may permit a member to be accorded points by the same member for another post without the need to spread it.

• However, the same post attracting points for the same features from multiple members should be prevented. This means that once a specific feature in a post has been accorded points by a member, another member cannot accord points to the same post on the same feature, although a different feature may be considered.

If the present system of awarding points for multiple features in a post is felt to quickly boost and bloat the score, we might consider the alternative of giving points only to ONE DISTINCTIVE FEATURE PER POST (so all features will be radio-buttons) and ONCE A POST EARNS POINTS, IT CAN'T BE CONSIDERED AGAIN by another member for another feature felt distinct therein. It seems to me, this alternative could be a wiser approach.

• Top ten scholarship points holders might be given the privilege to accord extra points to a post on an ad hoc basis. After all, there is a difference between an ordinary member considering a post scholarly and a scholarly member considering it in the same way.

Where do we start?

It is NOT fair to give a clean slate to all members in the scholarship points system. The existing scholars should be recognized and weighed. The only way to do this is to cull out scholarly posts from their posts that have earned them reputation and accord points for the features described above. The scholarship points history relating to these posts might be saved in the database in the same way the rep.point texts are saved. The sum total of points accorded for the scholarly posts might be taken as the base scholarship point of a member.

The scholarship points must be prominently displayed below the Reputation points. The reputation remark such as 'you are guru, you are an avatar' might be removed and that place used for displaying the scholarship points.

Finally, a HDF Scholarship Index may also be described adjacent to the scholarship points. This could be the percentage-share of a members scholarship point out of the sum total of the points of all members.

Presented for active consideration and suitable early implementation!

**********

[kshama]

Namaskar Blessed Members,

I am a bit confused why there should be scholarship points or pointers? Though it might serve as an indicator of one's scholarship and knowledge, it indirectly can make one's ego grow. This applies to reputation points also.

What would one accomplish by a statement or seal of scholarship beside their profile? I find it not necessary at all. For this is not a precise way to grade people. In a school, students were given tests to see how they fare, and those who mark their papers are scholars to an extent, so the evaluation is just and acceptable. But is this scholarship rating system like that? Some people even do not know abt the topics that are being discussed, yet people vote based on their logic, this logic too might be right or wrong. How can these people evaluate the topic. Merely parroting back scriptures, quoting back scriptures in a forum does not necessarily make people full of wisdom, any Tom, Dick and Jerry can do that, with little modifications here and there, cut and paste from other available sources without even knowing what they are copying about. Say instances like these occur, are the reputation/scholarship pointers reliable and precise? Wisdom doesn't necessarily come from reading and analyzing scriptures, if God wishes, any non-educated man can become a jnani.

Another thing, people can be biased when making judgments. People might favour voting for people they are comfortable with or know well. I give you an example, there are some people who never fail to quote scriptures but they do not even have manners and proper decorum in a forum, yet they have good reputation points. See how one can vote based on partiality and biases? Say, these bad characters do quote it rightly, but are they fit to be labelled scholars? That too a religious scholar?

Say, a new-convert to Hinduism or a born Hindu who lost their traditions trying to grasp the essence of Hinduism, they will definitely read posts by these bad characters with good reputation points or scholarship points. I admit, there are many good people here with good reputation points, but what if these aspirants take the point of views of members with questionable decorum yet with good reputation points or scholarship points? These aspirants might arrive at a conclusion abt a certain topic based on false premises.

Now, my views is not to degrade any members here and members that really are scholars here. I am trying to give you some angles that should be looked. I am not in anyway a guru, a moral police or people of profound knowledge. There's a Tamil saying that says: Katrathu Kaimann aLavu, kallathathu ulaga aLavu (What you know is as big as the size of sand in your palm, what you do not know is as big as the size of the universe). So these reputation and scholarship points are imprecise and not even nearer to the truth.

This whole reputation system is not just, in my humble opinion, I am open to hear any views. I am sure, as per usual my views will be taken out of context, but do please read carefully and come to your conclusions. Namaste.

[Eastern Mind]

kshama: I totally agree with you. The term 'senior member' is enough for me. This indicates the person has made several posts. Another thing that you failed to point out is that this is just the internet. It is not life. One could be living a fairly adharmic life outside of this place, yet be seen here as wise. I try not to judge people at all, but there are lines. At the same time as trying not to judge, scriptures and wisdom tell us not to associate with low-lifes. In my real life, I avoid gamblers, drinkers, adulterers, cursers, etc., for they have a vibration that sort of rubs off. Scriptures tell us time and again to associate with high-minded pure people. (Dharma comes more into play with family members.) And yet any one of the above could be posting here.
Wisdom also comes in a realm of ways. You can be a sanskrit scholar with no wisdom. Christians can be versed in study of the Vedas, or ancient Tamil literature. Within the realms of the intellect, anything is possible. I know people who are illiterate who have more wisdom than most of us here by far.

I would like to see perhaps a 5 star wisdom rating, or nothing at all. if you come on long enough, you get to know who you can trust re wisdom.

Aum namasivaya

[satay]

Namaskar everyone,

Please note that the forum software only has a 'reputation' feature. There is no additional feature that can be used as 'schloarship' points. The reputation feature can be turned off but I recall there might be a problem with it.

You can turn off your reputation points by going to 'User CP' then to 'Edit Options' and then unchecking the 'Show My Reputation Level'.

Edit: yes, it seems like there is a problem with the 'turning off' of reputation. It doesn't seem to be working. Let me look into this more.

[kshama]

@ Eastern Mind Ji,
Vanakkam, thank you for your views. Thank you too, for reminding abt points that I have missed out. I agree completely with you.

@ Satay Ji,
Namaskar. Thank you for the info.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté,

First let me say I can see saidevo's POV - his intent ( as with the intent of this overall string ) is to make HDF a better place to visit and contribute. I see at the crux of the idea, that giving credit for expended effort, knowledge, pondering, applicible wisdom, sādhana, etc. is worthy of merit and is to be recognized.

Yet in a perfect world reputation points would include saidevo's vidyA-saMkhyA--Scholarship Points, and perhaps today, this is not the case.
It suggests the following: vidyA-saMkhyA + reputation points = a creditable contributor that others on HDF perhaps find value in their postings, or writings have merit ( again within the HDF confines).

Now that said, based upon saidevo's idea and its robust point system, the question remains if this could even be accomplished in the HDF-based software application... if not, then we are talking academically.

Hence satay's post above suggest we are into academic's.

I think rewarding ( via reputation points) a person's opinions have merit. Opinions are fine, yet become more robust ( IMHO) when they are anchored in the śāstra-s. Why so? Pure opinion is bound/influenced by the existing conditions (space, time, cultural values, etc) and this is fine. Yet the śāstra-s give us an anchor which is timeless. This Does Not suggest opinions are not valued - they are. I revel in the notion of opinions that have been shaped by truths that are timeless...


kshama offers the following:

Though it might serve as an indicator of one's scholarship and knowledge, it indirectly can make one's ego grow. This applies to reputation points also.

Yes, no doubt. As long as we are unrealized beings, the ego will be there. Ego ebbs and flows accordingly. Should we encourage 'ego' - I say no. With or without points, the ego survives.

Another thing, people can be biased when making judgments. People might favor voting for people they are comfortable with or know well. This whole reputation system is not just, in my humble opinion

People are biased because they ( as I ) am still influenced by their past impressions ( vāsanā-s). This will continue until these vāsanā-s are no more - when one is possessed of the Self. This will continue with or without a point system , in their writings and communications.

Last, and I think this is most important and relevant - no matter how many points you accrue via any point method, once you step away from your computer and key-board you are who you are. Those points go no where, do nothing. The points do not bring you any closer to the truth of Being.
Those points do not wash away any of the blemishes ( moha) of ignorance. Yet the knowledge here on HDF just might contribute to some insight some aaahh! that allows one to connect to a higher truth, a clearer vision of reality. That is the benefit or residing here.

If there is a 'swelling of the head' because someone has accrued a mass amount of rep points, where is the wisdom in that? Painted cakes do not satisfy hunger say the wise i.e. no amount of points can be turned in that will crush the ignorance of being attached to the body (ātmānātma vivekaḥ¹ Self and not-Self).


praṇām

words and references

• ātmānātma vivekaḥ for more on this notion see HDF post http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4033
• vāsanā - the impression of anything remaining in the mind ; the present consciousness of past perceptions , knowledge derived from memory

[kshama]

@ Yajvan Ji,

I too can see Saidevo Ji's intent. He has valid points too. The problems with such ratings systems is that it will never show the real credibility of an individual.

Another problem that might occur, just because a person, say A, has good scholarship/reputation points, people will throng to see what A has to say in every thread. Nobody will care to see what B, C, D will have to say. This reputation system though useful will indirectly be will bloat A's ego. B, C, D though having wisdom, might get demotivated to opine anymore and leave the forum.

As you say, we are not realized, what if A has some kind of prejudices, some kind of biases and some kind of narrow-mindedness when stating his/her points. Laymen, aspirant, newcomers might take their words as if it is the truth.

I think the format that HDF has now is ok. Perhaps if one really needs a scholar's view, why not invite a real scholar (university proffesors, Swamis, Drs, etc,) to opine several topics. That will be more interesting.

Namaste.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namast� kshama,

@ Yajvan Ji,

Another problem that might occur, just because a person, say A, has good scholarship/reputation points, people will throng to see what A has to say in every thread. Nobody will care to see what B, C, D will have to say. This reputation system though useful will indirectly be will bloat A's ego. B, C, D though having wisdom, might get demotivated to opine anymore and leave the forum.

As you say, we are not realized, what if A has some kind of prejudices, some kind of biases and some kind of narrow-mindedness when stating his/her points. Laymen, aspirant, newcomers might take their words as if it is the truth.

You have stated how the world is, outside or inside of HDF, thank you. Skill comes in negotiating in these waters - skill in action , as given by the Bhāgavad gītā.
My point is simple - no matter in-or-out of HDF we have prejudices, likes and dislikes - this will not change with or without points appropriated. That is my POV. To opine over it is fruitless as I see it ( I am not saying you are doing this).

You have offered a reasonable and convincing POV and I respect your position. Yet as I see it 'fairness in toto' will not occur until our esteemed society, let alone HDF, is rooted in Truth. For this we have some work to do... in the interim we do the best we can.

praṇām

[devotee]

I think the format that HDF has now is ok.

Ditto !

OM

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namast�

satay writes,

I like this idea ( re: siddhānta vāk ). Though I think it will hard to implement, we can try it on a discussion. Let's pick a topic and apply it and see how it works out.

I propose that we puruse that of siddhānta vāk ( the final word). ( or siddhānta vicāra or 'vivAda nirNayam as saidevo offers) be applied to the next post that becomes highly contested.
We will go over the guidelines ( offered in post 11) and ask the parties to apply them. Lets see if it adds value.


satay also writes,

A lot of you want a better search utility so that relevant posts can be found faster and easily. This is a limitation of the software.

I know that there is a new version of this forum software that just came out. I will find out the new features and see if the search utility in the new version is improved.

thank you,