Talk:Parshvanatha/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name

I wonder why the name has just been changed from Parshvanath to Parshva Bhavsar and Parshva Bhsvar. I find more than 14000 Google hits for Parshvanath and three for Parshva Bhavsar (one of which is from Wikipedia), and not a single one for Parshva Bhsvar. 84.151.238.31 01:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying that a tirthankara is unable to aide his devotees personally conveys wrong/incomplete meaning. A tirthankara teaches the world about ways to achieve salvation. Jains strictly believes that salvation can only be achieved by one's own efforts. I have added this in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish13012009 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This account of Lord Pashva nath tells me that he is none other than Lord Parasurama who is described as an avatar of Lord Vishnu.The history completely matches with the history of Lord Parasuram.Both of them became ascetics at the age of 30.In Mahabharat Lord Krishna talks very high of him and says that he killed a number of Kshatriyas who were against him and wiped India out of the Kshatriyas .It seems he left only two clans of Kshatriyas namely the Ikshwakus and the Haihayas perhaps because of the fact that these kings were not men but only women, in the guise of male kings. the title given to him PURISADAMANA should be read as PURISHA DAMANA-THE PERSON WHO CUT OFF THE MALE ORGAN OF A NUMBER OF KINGS.THE HOOD OF NAGA shading his head reminds one of the SESHANAG which was shading the head of baby krishna.This means that both Krishna and Parswa were protected by at least 20 Naga Commandos.The Yaksha and Yakshini on either side of him were two Gandharva women (called as APSARAS in those times ).Krishna was also a Jain Muni and he told Pandavas clearly that the Kshatriyas who were available at that time were insignificant and can be wiped out along with the Brahmins who supported them in no time.It is also interesting to note that the original name of MAHABHARAT was JAYAM nnd it was written by a Jain Muni.Clubbing the two names we get JANA ME JAYAM.It shows that Janamejay was not the king who listened to Mahabharata but he was the writer of a great epic JAYAM-The great victory of Jainisn over vedic religion.The person who heard the narrative was VAISHAMPAYAN -a Naga king the son of mother VISHA.It is funny to note that all the Avataras of Vishnu are nothing but killing a Brahmin or a Kshatriya King by Jain thirthankars.They had all been re-written during the Gupta age along with the 18 Puranas where Lord Vishnu is depicted as destroyer of evil and protector of Brahmins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bksatyanarayana (talk • contribs) 03:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Height

Is there a reason why his height is given as 7.7142852 feet? The last digit is at the hundredth-of-a-micron level of precision. In fact, why is his height given at all? --Gargletheape (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing to 7.7 feet --Gargletheape (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Māllīnātha which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested, no objections in two weeks; a previous multimove did not find consensus for this over a year ago, but little of that discussion was focused on this particular page and the move appears to be justified as the common name here in the absence of other guidance. Dekimasuよ! 01:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Pārśva → Parshvanatha – WP:COMMONNAME: Britannica, 195,000 (IAST equivalent) + 1920 v/s Parshva 15,000 + 3170. The Hindu. To be in non-IAST, in accordance to Indian English spelling (national variety where majority of Jains live); also in line with other Tirthankara article Rishabha and Mahvira, the most important Tirthankara. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Question - where/what is the relevant project guideline on Sanskrit transcriptions? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOSIN seems to exist, but I'm not sure if it has any relevant guidance on the matter. --V2Blast (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi:: I also found something more helpful at WikiProject India: WP:NCINDIC describes naming conventions for Indic-related articles, and links to Wikipedia:Indic transliteration. I didn't actually look at them in too mcuh detail, but hopefully someone with more time can pinpoint the relevant information. --V2Blast (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Famous Temples dedicated to Parshvanatha

How come the following tirths are missing under the famous temples sections?

• Sankheshwar Parshwanath, near Ahmedabad
• Nakoda Parshwanath, Nakoda
• Jeerawala Parshwanath
• Chintamani Parshwanath

I think these are more famous and visited by many million devotees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.135.171 (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Not GA quality

@Capankajsmilyo: Just like two editors noted during the FA-review of Mahavira, this article too should not be "blatantly written from the perspective of a practicing Jain" sect. An encyclopedic article should not "uncritically repeat Jain beliefs and mythology" and "make heavy use of Jain terminology", or fail to "step away from the POV of a believer". The specific issues in this article are verifiability and misrepresentations of cited sources. The article is also pushing the view that Parshvanatha was a historic figure, which is just one view, and the article is not presenting the reasons and views of outside scholars who raise questions. The alleged dates in this article are not accepted in mainstream, and this article suffers from many such issue. This is a weak article. I urge you to withdraw the GA nomination for now, check this article line by line, each cite, improve NPOV and completeness before renominating it again. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 15:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The scholarly sources I listed on Talk:Mahavira would be helpful, to you or anyone wanting to improve this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)