Talk:Svayam Bhagavan/Archive 1

Redirect?

I removed the redirect from Talk:Svayam bhagavan to Talk:Krishna because these are separate articles. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)It was not me - it was the admin who added the redirect from Talk:Svayam bhagavan this Talk:Krishna. I will have to revert unless you get it in writing from him that its okay to have it separate. In general discussions should be common. --Wikidās ॐ 20:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me - I have contacted User:NawlinWiki (the admin who redirected the page) and am waiting for a reply. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the reply I received:

"No problem. The second time the Svayam bhagavan article was rewritten, I did not redirect it, but I forgot about the talk page. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)"

--Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats good news, no need to redirect then. Unless everyone here thinks it should be. Possibly a question to ask in a few days again... Wikidās ॐ 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should - it's a separate article on a separate (although related) subject with separate, different issues and problems that need to be fixed - hence a separate talk page. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV & Grammar

The article is POV and has many grammar problems and spelling mistakes. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I will create the todo list any maybe we will have a few lucky editors to check it out. Thanks again. Your improvements are appreciated.

As to the Neutrality of the article. lets discuss it here.Wikidās ॐ

I have fixed some of the grammar mistakes for now. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to comment on red links when I realized that many of the "red links" were really misspellings of words - for example VedaS should have been Vedas. I have fixed some (if not most) but the rest need to be fixed. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note: The appropriate English spelling of Krishna is "Krishna", not "Krsna". This has also caused red links to surface in the article. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

If there are any other points on view on this specific concept in Krsna centered Vaisnavism, I would like to hear it. If there are concepts that are discussed by other, let them discuss them on the relevant pages. Please put POV tags on the relevant sections and I will be able to balance it up.--Wikidās ॐ 20:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed much of the POV - most of it was just obvious simple stuff (for example - "Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead" rather than "Some schools believe...") Many of these statements were made in various places in the article and I have fixed many of them. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. I will remove the tag to your approval. Wikidās ॐ 22:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind - I hadn't really looked at the full article, and there is still much POV as well as badly written, unencyclopedic statements that are neither quoted nor sourced - for example "So the next question of the Vidura concerns the effectively possible answer, to which all doubts should be dispelled. How is Krsna's son Aniruddha, who is also the cause of Mahā-Viṣṇu, doing? This logic is hard to argue with. Why? Because He is the cause of the Ṛg Veda" Until all of these are removed and/or properly edited - the NPOV tag should remain, and perhaps a cleanup tag should be added on account of the badly written sentences --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We have to look into the improvements of existing sections, and only then adding some new material. Ironing out needs to done, but it good that we are not disputing it in principle. Wikidās ॐ 07:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to dispute here - the article is clearly about a specific subject, namely Krishna as "Svayam bhagavan". My complaints are specifically about poor wording, grammar, and spelling - this really hurts the quality of the article. The POV issues are specifically related to wording, and a contradiction (see below). --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested that {{POV-disputed}} tags to be placed at the particular instances of POV discovered. I will look at it and balance it up. Main article tag is thus not required as per your comment above. If you want to keep it let us discuss it here as you said Nothing to dispute here - the article is clearly about a specific subject, namely Krishna as "Svayam bhagavan".--Wikidās ॐ 14:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

It isn't just bad grammar that harms this article - it's a lot of badly-written sentences, and in general, the article doesn't conform with WP:MOS as well. I've placed a cleanup tag on the article for this reason. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction?

WOW - there are a LOT of problems in this article, including this: first the article talks about the concept that Krishna is the source of all avatars (the main subject of this article), then goes on to state "Narayana is the original form of Vishnu who is the supreme and this is supported by the shastras, Vedic scriptures or scriptures in pursuance of the Vedic version. This fact is accepted universally across many traditions..." MAJOR CONTRADICTION HERE! (And also, technically, POV in the other point of view - not the same POV found in the rest of the article!!) This needs to be fixed, perhaps with references to the 'mainstream' schools of Vaishnavism who do uphold this view about Narayana/Vishnu. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To clear this one up I guess a section of the difference between tad-ekatma and svayam rupa should be added. Thanks for noting it. I think to this section other point of view may be added to address the issue of theology. Wikidās ॐ 07:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the intention - I was surprised to see it so directly added, though. It should be phrased specifically as a different point of view to avoid confusion and POV. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be addressed and I had a look at it. Let me know what you think. --Wikidās ॐ 10:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I will say that the term has been used outside of the Gaudiya/Nimbaraka/Vallabha sects (including Sri/Madhva views) to refer to Narayana - however it should be noted as such. The difference should be clearly defined to avoid confusion. The main reason I tagged the article for POV was that POV statements exist for both points of view - contradicting each other as mentioned above. (That wasn't the only part of the article where it happened, just the most prominent.) Both should be expressed as different points of view on the subject. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have to ask you to provide any evidence from the original texts. I will accept evidence that is no verifiable, but for the article we will need more verifiable quotes. the link you provided is good, bu is argumentative, have nothing to do with Sri/Madhva and is only valid in the context of the Gaudiya concept. That seems obvious. Wikidās ॐ 22:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize that - as I said this is the first thing that came up in a quick search simply to find a Madhva view on the subject. (I haven't found many Sri Vaishnava sources yet, though admittedly I haven't spent that much time searching for either as of now.) --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Red Links

I found several red links in this article. If their subjects are notable, articles about them should be created, but if not, the red links should be removed. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I recognize that many of these were really misspellings, such as VedaS instead of Vedas and have fixed many of these; however, many 'real' red links still exist. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of them is work in progress. Some redlinks are the same as in the parent article.--Wikidās ॐ 07:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NOT NEUTRAL

The term "Svayam bhagavan" is also used for Narayana (Vishnu). Ref:[1]. The article only concentrates on Krishna aspect as Svayam bhagavan.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly true - and the article did originally make a note of that, but went on to say that this article will ONLY cover the view of Krishna, and not Vishnu/Narayana. I had removed that sentence because it was both badly written (grammar, etc) and incorrect - no article should cover just one view of anything. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The artcle is about the concept. This concept is not present in the sastra for Narayana. Svayam is not used in the vedic literature in relation to Narayana. Thus is the specific focus of the article in a number of particular traditions. Wikidās ॐ 22:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone got quotes from original sources on "Svayam bhagavan" used for Narayana (Vishnu) let us know or just add the reference to the text with a comment.

All references I could find in Bh.P.: 2.7.21 (used for Dhanvantari), 5.24.27 (Vamana), 7.1.1 (Visnu), 8.5.4 (Vaikunthadeva), 10.83.6-7 (Krsna). Re Krsna see Brahma Vaivarta Purana where He is called paripūrṇatama many times. --Jan 82.208.2.214 (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OR

Reason of absence in Veda

"While Purusha is clearly mentioned in the Veda, the name Krishna is not. Vishnu is mentioned only a few times. Some scholars conclude that its related with the fact that the monotheism of Vaishnavas was formed later. From the perspective of Gaudiya Nimbaraka and Vallabhacharya, of course, there is a good reason for Krishna not being visible thought the media of the Veda. The reason is that He is known only thought devotion as Prabhupada said: "those who were not pure devotees of the Lord could not recognize Him or know His glories. Avajānānti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam[46]: He is always bewildering to the nondevotees, but He is always seen by the devotees by dint of their pure devotional service to Him."[47] Vedas appear to have had utilitarian purposes, described as karma – via the sacrifices as described in the Vedas, knowledge, jnana – in Upanishad; according to some Vaishnavas those with these motivations are not qualified to be considered for bhakti-marga or path of pure devotion. This position is disputed by Mimamsicas and is largely apologetic. "

This is completely original research. Also Prabhupadaji can not treated as an academic scholar and thus his views can not be the basis of theories on wikipedia.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will add references. And no your wrong, religious leaders do form a valid basis of Wikipedia sources in the particular area of thier area. Wikidās ॐ 13:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, sorry to say you are wrong. See FA Ganesha, there are no quotes of religious leaders, just of academic scholars.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that this is policy of WP. You will have do better then that, there are millions of 'quotes' not by academic schollars. I will look for a compromise and get a few quotes from Ramanuja and Tattvavadis on the subject to have a balanced view. Do you have and quotes from scholars on this?

Please also refer to any WP:CITE section that restricts any types of quotations.

Wikidās ॐ 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked and there is no exclusion and the above statement that 'quotes' not by academic schollars can not be published is incorrect. Please do not get involved in disruptive editing. Thus the tag is removed. Discuss it here first before putting up again. Thanks. Wikidās ॐ 14:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But they do not explicitly say this is the reason of absence of Krishna from Vedas. Thus it is OR. The quotes are referenced but the conclusions are OR.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gopala Mantra

This is OR too as

• Primary source used.
• Even if translation is righ, it does not explicitly say "Therefore, Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead". This conclusion is OR.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will up look the sources, and will quote academics on it. In the meantime I would appreciate if you can mark relevant sections or paragraphs with {{or}} or {{POV}} tags, as the article is quite big and majority of it is not OR and POV does not apply to the whole text. Thanks for looking at it. Will be back shortly.

The image is not required as its not about Hindu deity, its about a concept within 3 particular traditions of the Vaisnavas. Wikidās ॐ 13:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

References

The article mostly contains references translations of Bhagatvata Purana by Prabhupadaji or other ISKCON sites. Pradhupadaji's views can be noted, but more NEUTRAL mainstream academic views should be added to remove the ISKCON bias, that the author has unintentionally put in the article. Prabupadaji's literature can well be termed as devotee literature, thus may be the most WP:RS. Also primary sources like Puranas or Rig Veda are not considered valid, secondary sources are required.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I will look into it. However you realize that this article is specifically about particular concept, that is found in Gaudiya Nimbaraka and Vallabhacharya tradition, thus you can not avoid the quotes. Thanks. BTW images are loaded and comply with WIKI policies. If in doubt comment on image pages... Wikidās ॐ 13:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the term is used in many sects of Vaishnavism, either to refer to Krishna (which is almost entirely what this article talks about) or to Narayana (which needs to be added - there is little to no mention of this view). The article currently almost exclusively talks about the Gaudiya/Nimbaraka/Vallabha view referring to Krishna, and there is no mention of the Sri/Madhva view as Narayana. Quotes and/or links/sources should be provided for all views to ensure a neutral] but comprehensive point of view. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to find specific references to svayam bhagavan concept by Madhvacharya or in Sri sampradaya. Does anyone have a database of the religious texts by the said - they could do a search and see if they find this concept in the commentaries or in the stotras. Wikidās ॐ 22:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm positive it has been used in Madhva views. I'm currently looking for more sources and references on the subject but a quick search found a page from [2], a prominent Madhva site. See 3.1 - the page actually provides a Madhva view on differences with ISKCON, but includes a difference of interpretation for "Krishnastu Bhagavan Swayam". Will also look for Sri Sampradaya sources. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that critique of the concept can be ref to. That is nice and gives NPOV. But what Im yet to see is the word svayam bhagavan relating to Narayana or Para-Vasudeva as the case be in different lines. I do not think that is possible to find, otherwise Mahaprabhu would not have used it as the key concept. Wikidās ॐ 23:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)