Talk:Bhagavad Gita/Archive 4

Yoga or yoga?
First letter capital or first letter small– what are we going to use in the article? I am okay with both. But, currently we have mixed up in the article! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  07:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The first letter should be small unless it refers to the Yoga philosophy. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Honorifics
Could editors please consider whether the use of honorifics is appropriate? I'm thinking of "According to his method of division Swami Gambhirananda characterizes Madhusudana Sarasvati's system as a successive approach in which Karma yoga leads to Bhakti yoga, which in turn leads to Jnana yoga." where in my humble monoglot Australian I learn that Swami was an honorific. As far as I understand international English scholarly styles, honorifics are usually not used in relation to people with a capacity to give expert commentary. Obviously, I am happy to be wrong, but it does read unusually in Australian english or International academic english. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Swami should be dropped. It is no less an honorific than, say, Shri or Pandit. See WP:HONORIFIC. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or we can follow the exact article titles in Wikipedia. The requested move to Swami Vivekananda → Vivekananda was declined, as it is WP:COMMONNAME and nationally accepted (and used)! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  13:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles, not content. For example, an article about Raj Kundra does not refer to him as "Raj Kundra" throughout. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree, whether we use honorific or not, that is not going to be a big factor here, I think! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  14:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, At first instance, the common name should be used only if it has an honorific. e.g. Swami Swami Vivekanandaat first instance, then only Vivekananda. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

700 slokas! But, in our calculation it is not!
In article the number of slokas we have written 47+72+43+42+29+46+30+28+34+42+55+20+34+27+20+24+28+78 makes, and not 700 -- Tito Dutta  ✉  18:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The corrections according to the source are given in brackets: 47(46)+72+43+42+29+46(47)+30+28+34+42+55+20+34(35)+27+20+24+28+78 CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Checking with Wikipedia calculator -- Tito Dutta   ✉  18:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But, your correction is not supported by Gita Press edition, though it is supported by Bhagavad Gita org website -- Tito Dutta  ✉  18:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If Gita press version doesn't add up to 700 it is probably incorrect. I have seen lot of sources acknowledge 700 verses. Are there any that say there are 699 verses? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have any other source at this moment, but since they are showing all 47 verses in chapter 1 etc, we need to to say they have added one verse from somewhere in Chapter–1 in their book. -- Tito Dutta  ✉  18:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would guess from chapter 6, you can verify this. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also can you see in your sources– number of verses in Gita Dhyanam– 9 or 10? Gita Press is saying 10– we have mentioned 9! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  19:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem is that at times 4 lines are combined to make one verse and at times two. Hence, the difference in numbers. You can go with either of the sources. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made changes, since 1) that at least makes 700 2) the sources we have added now, it follows that! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Gita Chapter Table!
Hello, User:Adellefrank, Thanks for your edits in this article. But, I feel table is not needed here, as you have done in this edit. Reasons–
 * The was media files have been placed (image, audio file) are are not looking good! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  00:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tito, the content, with the image and audio, does not warrant a table.
 * Your arguments make sense. I was trying to make the overview of chapters easier to scan, but I'm not sure the table format helped. However, I still find the repetition of "yoga" after each chapter and the placement of the verse count in parentheses a little distracting when reading this overview.

Adelle Frank (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC) , based on your edit here, it looks like you are trying to push this article to GA status. While both you and Tito have done good work here, this article still lacks quite a few things—
 * The contents of the 18 chapters are not referenced.
 * There are still many Swamiji comments in this article instead of scholarly opinions, as noted in the discussion above.
 * The Dharma and Moksha subsections in the Themes section are almost empty of content.
 * Philosophical themes explored in the Bhagavad Gita, such as, Yoga psychology, matter and mind, evolution etc. should be added ahead of structure, which is full of jargon and can put off a reader new to Hinduism. (some of the themes are explored by Easwaran here) CorrectKnowledge (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I can not understand why you have added Dharma and Moksha blank sections! The main articles you have added they are not on the theme "Moksha in Gita" or "Dharma in Gita" -- Tito Dutta  ✉  08:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * and Again, thank you both for your corrections and work on this article! I knew from the original content that Dharma and Moksha were important themes in the Gita, but I don't feel qualified yet to add any details.
 * Regarding putting Themes before structure, what organization would you suggest to make it less overwhelming for new readers? I was basing some of my organizational choices on how information is arranged on the Mahabharata and Ramayana articles.  I moved a few sections around to try and make it less overwhelming at the top of the  article.  Any thoughts?
 * Adelle Frank (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Your edits were over all helpful. Hope you have seen it none of your edits was reverted, we made some (minor) changes there. Please remember to use emdash (–) and endash wherever applicable, I faced a hard time to find and correct all. And, you mentioned "Kaurava" as character of Mahabharata which has been removed (see characters section below, and post your comment if possible). And, you removed some content from lead, which made the lead too short in comparison of the length of the article). But, I must say, your edits were over all helpful. As a regular contributor I welcome here. Thanks for all your contribution Let me know if you have any question. -- Tito Dutta  ✉  02:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar!
I am planning to create a "Bhagavad Gita" or "Jai Sri Krishna" barnstar. I know there is a Hinduism barnstar already, but, we'll make it a personal user award to acknowledge contribution to Bhagavad Gita article! I have started making a draft. Any opinion? -- Tito Dutta  ✉  12:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * '''See Template:The Karma Yogi Barnstar
 * Or we can name it: "Yada yada hi dharmashya..." or "Vasudeva Sarvam acknowledgement"– sounds great! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  12:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the idea. What about the quote on "Karmanye Vadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kada Chana"? Or will giving a barnstar with this quote become a bit ironic? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have created few barnstars, I think this is my best creation so far, see at the bottom of the page Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi/GA2. We can add it in image of the barnstar using some photo editor! Devanagari script or Roman script ( or Bengali script, I'll like it (joking :-D) )?-- Tito Dutta  ✉  12:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Gandhi barnstar looks good. If you replace the picture of Mahatma Gandhi with File:Krishna_Arjuna_Gita.jpg, change the colours of the tricolour (saffron and blue?) and add a quote in devnagari/roman/ even bengali with its english translation, we'll have a winner. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, no, no imitation and no repetition please! I'll try to make something new. I'll present it as a draft for comments and modification at once it'll be ready! What do you think? -- Tito Dutta  ✉  12:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, it'll take some work but if its new and unique it'll probably have more of an impact on the receiver. Best of luck! CorrectKnowledge (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see these two images. I wish to use these two as header footer of the barnstar. I have not prepared/selected Krishna's image still: --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;"> Tito Dutta  ✉  14:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First image
 * Second image
 * The images look good, though you might have to resize them depending on the size of the barnstar. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That can be done changing pixel in the code, currently it is 700px: Karmanye vadhikaraste ma phaleshu kadachna animated.gif Any idea on Krishna's image? --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;"> Tito Dutta  ✉  15:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You know more than me about copyvio, so you be the best judge of whether or not to borrow images from the internet. Personally, images in the lead sections of Krishna article and the Bhagavad Gita article look good to me. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not, copyvio! I was talking about selecting one from Commons:Category:Krishna there are many image there! Should I change color of the banners above to ? Choose the exact color from http://www.colorpicker.com/ and write the code here! --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;"> Tito Dutta  ✉  15:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the two images I mentioned above, File:Bhagavata Gita Bishnupur Arnab Dutta 2011.JPG would also suit the barnstar. As for the colour of the banners, it'll depend on what background/foreground colour you are using for the rest of barnstar. Usually, shades of yellow and and blue (bit like #19A6D1) are used to represent Krishna. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, color is not matching, I think! Still see a demo here --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;"> Tito Dutta   ✉  15:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you make the black background transparent and use a darker shade of blue like #04ABDE or an even darker shade? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Or I can make the font color see demo 2) You mean font color and bg transparent? No, no, it'll look poor since glow will be spoiled here! --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;"> Tito Dutta   ✉  16:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The first version with the blue font colour/black background looks good. It will do for the purposes of barnstar. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made changes, see above, if you can not see, bypass cache. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;"> Tito Dutta  ✉  16:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see the updated banners. They'll look good with any of the three images. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's start working the, I am starting draft, make changes --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;"> Tito Dutta  ✉  16:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Drafts

 * '''Result of this discussion: Template:The Karma Yogi Barnstar

New Gita dating sentence
The first issue is that the new content does not reflect what the book states. C.V.Vidya and Tarakeshwar Bhattacharya supposedley date the Mahabharata (not the Gita) to 3102 B.C. or 1432 B.C. Then by taking an illogical leap, A.P. Sharma speculates on 2000 to 3000 BC as the Gita date. So it is only one person giving that date, A.P. Sharma....not C.V.Vidya and Tarakeshwar Bhattacharya. The second issue I have is that it is an extraordinary claim to say the Gita dates from that time. Every other book says around 300 BCE to 300CE. For example this one, this one, this one, etc. etc. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing you after a long time, how are you? Ya, it seems it is A.P.Sharma's speculation. Or common sense?  A 1) If battle of Kurukshetra was fought in that period naturally Gita was also told by Krishna at the same time. Is not it? 2) Since Gita is a part of Mahabharat, if Mahabharat dates back to 3000 BC to 2000 BC, it'll not be wrong to consider that Gita was also first told in that period (before 2000 BC). B 3) If we consider Gita was written by Vyasa wrote Gita (as we have written in the article too) then certainly Vyasa can not write Gita after his death (time of Vyasa: 1100 BC and 700 BC). So, if we only mention Gita dates back to first CE or so, we need to immediately disregard 1) it was written by Vyasa 2) it was told by Krishna
 * Anyway not only A.P.Sharma's speculation. Have you collected Ramakrishna Mission's Gita? I had one copy of the book, but I gifted the book someone so don't have now. If you can collect the book you will get a bunch of good (and very written from neutral point of view) information there. Or I'll collect a copy within next few days. Or I may need to go to local library to collect some good information on this. To the point reply will be appreciated.--Tito Dutta Message 12:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I can see you searched in Google Books with the query Gita 200 BCE to get only those results. Not a good sign--Tito Dutta Message 12:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding point 1. Both the battle of Kurukshetra and Krishna are fictional.  Regarding point 2. Most scholars date the Mahabharata differently.  Moreover most scholars say the Gita was a later addition to the Mahabharata anyway.  Regarding point 3. The Gita was not written by Vyasa. What is not a good sign, is that you have your own website promoting the Gita here.  BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding second part how my website is related to this date of Gita related discussion? Have I quoted a portion from my website and presented as a reference here
 * Regarding first part: the whole article is written like that- Krishna told Gita in battle of Kurukshetra Its authorship is traditionally ascribed to Vyasa, the compiler of the Mahabharata etc. --Tito Dutta Message 06:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tito Dutta, please stop edit warring. Please abide by WP:BRD. You made a bold edit which has been reverted. The next step is 'discuss', not "edit war to add my edit again while discussing on the talk page". Please abide by Wikipedia policy. We do not need the article to say that the Gita was written thousands of years before the date that all mainstream scholars give. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with goethean. To claim the Bhagavad Gita is older than the Rig Veda and Upanishads violates Wikipedia policy as described here Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.  BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See the article history, I myself removed that portion from the article (edit warring?). There is some basic problem here, if Gita's authorship is traditionally ascribed to Vyasa, Vyasa can not write Gita 2-3 centuries after his death! I do not care if Gita was written in 5000 BCE or will be written in 2013 CE, but we must present the correct information. So once again- we need some studies here to present accurate information. Is anyone interested?
 * And about making bold edit before adding the book source I posted it in talk page (see the previous discussion), then no one talked about it. --Tito Dutta Message 15:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought that you had inserted your addition again.


 * It is only a contradiction if you assume that the information in the Gita about dates represents a literal description of historical fact. Most scholars view the book as having symbolic religious and philosophical truths rather than being a literal history book. Most ancient books (the Bible, the Iliad, etc) are not reliable sources for literal historical facts, although they contain great symbolic, religious ad philosophical truths. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I again concur with goethean. There is a difference between an attribution and authorship.  The Gita is attributed to the immortal Vyasa, but that is not the same as authorship.  BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And again, similarly, the Iliad is attributed to Homer but no scholar of ancient Greek believes that Homer wrote the Iliad. The same with Moses and the Torah. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with the attribution language, with a note that authorship is different. This possibly can be used as a reference (scroll up a little). Some books don't even bother to mention the attriubtion to Vyasa, and just mention several authors of the Gita (see current reference already in article by Dalvi). BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks great to me. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Typical western christian arrogance regarding dates. You guys just can't accept that our culture is older than the Judeo Christian culture. Dwarka is an Indus valley era city dating backt to at least 3000 BC. The roots of our civilisation. On that basis itself both the Mahabharata and the Gita are definitely compose dwell before 1000 BC in the Vedic Age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.223.161 (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ideas and opinions

 * 1) There are much more Swami Ji, Baba Ji type comments in the article than scholar's works.
 * 2) The article lacks WP:RS
 * 3) The article needs some visible references. Currently the references are like this "book abc, page de" now you have no way to verify. I'll try to add some easily available references.
 * 4) Commentary section is too long. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;"> Tito Dutta  ✉  21:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Swami Ji comments are acceptable when they add relevant information to the article. For instance, "Swami Gambhirananda characterizes Madhusudana Sarasvati's system as a successive approach in which Karma yoga leads to Bhakti yoga, which in turn leads to Jnana yoga..." is alright. However, hagiographic statements like "Swami Chinmayananda wrote a highly acclaimed commentary in which the Gita is presented as a universe text of spiritual guidance for humanity" can be done away with. Incidentally, this sentence along with a similar sentence on Paramhansa Yogananda is in the commentaries section you want shortened. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, though I have not done enough studies on Swami Chinmayananda. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;"> Tito Dutta  ✉  03:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In the para, Independence movement, it is said : " At a time when Indian nationalists were seeking an indigenous basis for social and political action, Bhagavad Gita provided them with a rationale for their activism and fight against injustice ". I feel it is wrong to say so. It is not the Gita that provided them a rationale, it is their own mind that created rationale out of its own interpretation and understanding of Gita. Kawaikx15 (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Ambition
I think we are (specially User:CorrectKnowledge) is interested to get a GA status for the article! So, I think it'll be excellent if we discuss that is this article truly GA ready, if not what works are needed to be done! --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;"> Tito Dutta  ✉  16:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can also add to the list. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ask for a peer review before going for GA. - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking the same thing. First better we review it ourselves (by making a task list), then PA → GA etc! --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;"> Tito Dutta  ✉  16:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote at the article's peer review page, I'd be greatly surprised if the article makes it to the GA status. It's a good try, but, IMHO, it still requires a great deal of work on its content, structure, style, and even punctuation, to become eligible as a GAN. If I were you I would not rush it to the nomination yet. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

How could Arjuna forget the teachings of Gita so easily and quickly?
There is a school of thought that believes Conversation of Gita never took place during the Mahabharata war and was later added and attributed to it. This conversation marks the imparting of divine wisdom by God to Man, so to change the nature of Man into divine one, carving an image of God in man. If it had actually happened as suggested during the war, nature of Arjuna would have altered definitely but that is not the case. Gita suggests the disolution of ego - sense of individuality, anger, lust. It promotes surrender, equanimity to outer events, concentration on God. Arjuna reflected no such change after the supposed conversation. He subjected himself to anger time and again during the course of war despite the fact that God was a constant reminder of his supposed teachings, in front of him as his Charioteer. He mourned over the deads, whereas Gita chides at such practice. Could Arjuna forgot the conversation so easily and quickly? I suggest we should add this angle to the main article so to make it more objective to the readers to create their own opinions freely. Kawaikx15 (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And your scholarly, secondary theological sources for an apparently original theological interpretation are? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

My comment is based on the teachings of Sri Aurobindo and his work on Gita - ' The essays on Gita '. Aurobindo's interpretation of Gita is based on his spiritual experiences and his learning of Rig Veda. kawaikx15 Saurabh (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
Some have criticised geeta. We need to add a section to mention them and answer them as well. ~rAGU (talk)
 * As one step I propose to add an external link which shows the Christian perspective of Gita's teachings (www.christiansinindia.in/bhagavad-gita/). It is not a criticism though, but a different approach. It would be also interesting to see how adherents of other religions perceive this text. Nikil44 (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A Buddhist criticism might be provided by Ambedkar's opinion on the Bhagavad Gita since he is a famous representative of Buddhism (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4397889?uid=3738256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101668358431). A Muslim critical response on the Gita can be seen on http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about-islam/faith-and-worship/islamic-creed/167261-the-teachings-of-hinduism.html. What do you think about adding such links? Nikil44 (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you add those links to DMOZ instead? The external link section is prone to spam and in April 2012 it was decided not to add any more links to it. The section now links only to DMOZ so adding these links there might be better. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  14:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont think christiansinindia.in and onislam.net are WP:RS nor do they satisfy WP:EL. I suggest adding all praise/criticism under reception section, no point in creating separate "praise", "criticism" sections. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am an adherent and I would like an opportunity to criticize and answer some propaganda and criticism from well meaning as well as some distractors.~rAGU (talk)
 * We should be careful not to create or emphasize controversy WP:CRITICISM provides valuable guidance on this issue.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 18:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Bhagavadgītā
Bhagavad gītā should be read as a single word (भगवद्गीता, Bhagavadgītā ). I think its a Tatpurusha samasa. (Just like we say "bhelgadi = Bhelo ke dvara chalne vali gadi" - we dont write it "Bhel Gadi"). Please correct me if I am wrong? Nagarjuna198 03:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ See added references or DMOZ links --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Netaji and Gita
http://hinduinspiration.blogspot.in/2011/04/netaji-subhas-chandra-bose-truest.html

See this,and include my edit.Ovsek (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That blogspot is not a WP:reliable source. --Tito Dutta (contact) 07:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, any publications on blogpost are personal blog web sites and per WP:RS they are not reliable sources for this encyclopedia.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/2010/Jan/engpdf/18-26.pdf

1. Social Concept: (a) Views on religion, communalism etc,here this is also referred.Ovsek (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Vivekananda's opinion etc are already added. About Influence, the main article is Influence of Bhagavad Gita, if you edit take care about formatting! --Tito Dutta (contact) 08:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Etc??Have respect man.It should be also added here as well as in the main article.Ovsek (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have much more respect for Vivekananda, Bose, Gita than you can imagine! I am a primary contributor of all these articles and portals! You need to concentrate on formatting! --Tito Dutta (contact) 04:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why Netaji accepted monkhood in his teen and used to study Gita constantly(Karma Yoga),these are not mentioned?!Ovsek (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ovsek, I appreciate your passion for the subject and your good intentions to improve the article. However, please be civil and show respect for others. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. This means we often have to compromise and discuss. On other matters, this PDF by Roy seems to be a good source, especially if he is PhD (the article does not specify). A topic like this should have lots of high quality academic sources for use in the article. And what we editors do here on WP is to neutrally summarize the best quality sources on a given topic. So our personal views have to be kept separate from our activity of summarizing reliable sources per WP:RS. So take it easy and work collaboratively with other editors who may be more experienced than you and who can help you to learn the WP policies and culture and work productively within that culture. Many thanks! --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 14:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.But I found this also. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-20/bhubaneswar/35932625_1_museum-and-exhibits-memorabilia-netaji-birthplace-museum-janakinath-bhawan Ovsek (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Where does it mention Bose was influenced by Gita? I'll see if I can find a source later! --Tito Dutta (talk • contributions • email) 05:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

http://www.indiaonline.in/About/Personalities/Freedom-Fighters/Subhash-Chandra-Bose.html Read in "Philosophy" section sir.

"Subhash Chandra Bose believed that the Bhagavad-Gita was a great source of inspiration for the struggle against the British." Thank you.Ovsek (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not RS! I'll see if I can do later! --Tito Dutta (talk • contributions • email) 06:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You can also find it here-http://readanddigest.com/subhash-chandra-bose/ You can also find it in many book. Perhaps nothing is Reliable Source?eh?Thank you.Ovsek (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As it is
Why is this image in this article? is this even a respected translation?(user:mercurywoodrose)108.94.0.171 (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, irrelevant image in the lead section. Did not have not free rationale too. I have removed the image. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 04:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i had not worked here before, and was concerned it was not being watched.(merc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.94.0.171 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 17 August 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Generally messages at talk page are answered. But, sometimes we miss talk page messages too. In such situation there are other ways to get help, asking at Help Desks, Teahouse, related WikiProject Noticeboards (for example here WikiProject Indian and WikiProject Hinduism, if you see top of this page, you'll find the links). -- Tito ☸ Dutta 07:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Influence-section
I think this whole influence section is quite useless. It does not tell what the influence of the BG is or was; it only gives some appraisal. If anything can be discerned from this, then it is that the BG apparently plays a central role in Neo-Vedanta (yeah, yeah, here he gHello?oes again...) But what this role is, and why, how it influenced those people: nothing about it. This book might be interesting in this respect. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   21:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * About half of the section seems influence, half seems appraisal. Your book reference looks potentially valuable. Your summary of what's in the section does not seem accurate. Regards -- Presearch (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A deliberate irresponsible editor?
The Bhagavad Gita is NOT dated by it's written text, its dated by its ORAL history of kings,tribes,land marks and so on, The gita was handed down over thousands of years by mantras, take BUDDHISM for example, buddhism was handed for 500 years as mantras before it was finally written down in Sanskrit/pail ect, before that time the monks would pass Buddha scriptures down in vocal mantras.

The Bhagavad Gita Means, THE SONG OF GOD! pay attention to the word SONG, the gita is not dated in written form just like the Torah is not dated just in its written form of 400bc, we know that the scriptures state that Krishna city was washed over by Hello? the sea and that city has been found in Dwarka, The history channel made this clear that artifact brought up in that location sailed past the 5000bc mark which is correct with indian scholars, i do not want to hear this page being influenced by out dated European scholars from the 19th century to 1995, we live in 2013 so be kind enough to treat this page with respect to its correct dating of the Gita.

Even the Jewish page has stated its book was in oral form first, i mean is this page being edited by a educated hindu or just a christian who wishes to not give the full information?82.38.161.217 (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC) markvedic


 * Please read WP:RS regarding reliable sources, and WP:GOODFAITH and WP:PERSONAL regarding "is this page being edited by a educated hindu or just a christian who wishes to not give the full information" - and refrain from such statements!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * with Joshua Jonathan Tito ☸ Dutta 20:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsensical spelling of Krishna / Kṛṣṇa
Someone has been repeatedly reintroducing the nonsensical spelling "Kṛiṣhṇa" into a particular quote in the article, despite multiple editors' attempt to correct it. First of all, the original source (Michaels p. 59, see online here or here) carries the standard academic spelling Kṛṣṇa, and we should in general not tampeCanyouhearme?r with quotation. Even if we do (and that we should do, without comment, is not clear), let me state it very clearly: I'm going to fix the spelling for now (again); please discuss on talk page with reason (like the above) before reintroducing the incorrect one. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Acceptable spelling: Kṛṣṇa (academic convention; see IAST, and also the spelling used in the source)‌
 * Acceptable spelling: Krishna (common spelling in English — note: no diacritics)
 * Unacceptable spelling: Kṛiṣhṇa (here these diacritical marks on 'r', 's', 'n' don't mean anything, in any known system. This spelling is not found anywhere on Wikipedia (hopefully), and does not occur except in archaic works over a century old.)

Bhagavad Gita in the Light of Thinking and Destiny
Hi Joshua : ) What do you think about adding a small section on the Bhagavad Gita Wiki recognizing the work of Owen Slight? He did translate the whole Gita and it does make total sense in the light of Thinking and Destiny if you read both.  Is this where we talk or should I have made a section on your talk page?  Thanks for your help Whatrwe2do (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Copy this thread to the Gita-talkpage. There is a section on Bhagavad Gita; you could add a subheader on "Influence". Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hope I did that right! ThanksWhatrwe2do (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Both Thinking and Destiny and Owen Slight's The Bhagavad Gita: The Song of the Exalted Self are self-published works of little scholarly notability. For example, I didn't find any reviews or discussion of either on jstor; the former is only included as one of the "Books received" in this list, which shows little beyond that the work exists. Thinking and destiny is at least held by a non-neglegible number of libraries (308) according to worldcat; Slight's book is held by just five. Given all this, mention of either works on this page is undue, and frankly the articles Thinking and Destiny and Harold W. Percival themselves need to be reviewed for notability; I suspect that the latter may be notable as an occultist, but the article need significantly better sourcing to be retained on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge request

 * Oppose Someone proposed a merge request, did not care to start any discussion and merged himself within 24 hours. Please do not make disruptive enough. The topic is broad enough to have its own article(s). -- Tito ☸ Dutta 02:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose' Senseless list of quotes; are we also going to add the opinions of those who reject the Bhagavad Gita? I've reverted the merger.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggest merger to Wikiquote . Appraisal section summarises the views. Influence of Bhagavad Gita is not developed enough to be retained as a separate article and should redirect to the Appraisal section. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Good idea.   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, into Wikiquote is the home for this. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikiquote info should be separate from main article.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no official guideline about opposing quotes into articles. It is good to have separate article about the comments about Gita, maybe the quotes were undue here that's why other page was created. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Removing WP:UNDUE info, such as Yogananda's commentary, and the accompanying picture, is not vandalism. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yogananda and/or his gurus have a dubious lineage.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 06:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been on Wikipedia for years now and understand the guidelines. What you did Victoria was take out a significant 2 volume commentary on the Bhagavad Gita from a well known and respected author. You will need to prove to us on wikipedia why you think it shouldn't be on this page. Also, explain to the community why removing this volume is not vandalism when you deleted it without bringing it in to question on the talk page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red Rose 13 edits exclusively Yogananda related pages. Red Rose 13 should stop accusing others of vandalism when they delete Yogananda related material. I had two edit summaries which were clear.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 06:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Victoria is deleting things from wikipedia that she has judged from a dubious lineage. Wikipedia is a place of facts and not for personal preferences nor judgements - Neutral Point of View  Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red Rose 13 edits exclusively Yogananda related pages.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 07:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the bigger picture: Given the absolutely immense literature on Bhagavada Gita, we should not be declaring any particular translation or commentary of the Gita as important, without proper secondary sources (ie, not just a reference to the translation itself). The article already does a decent job of this at present and cites Robinson, Larson etc on the importance of some translations, although it is not consistent in the approach. Another secondary source that can be used to vet translations and commentaries is the just published:

which has a chapter on modern translations (and cites Callewaert & Hemraj's count of 1891 BG translations in 75 languages, including 274 in English...and those numbers are from 1982!). can you help incorporate this source into the article? I'll try to help, but currently you both are much more active on wikipedia. Abecedare Abecedare (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As a reminder for Red Rose:
 * ''"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism.
 * Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.
 * Maybe Red Rose could be so kind to provide a secondary source which labels Yogananda's commentary as relevant? anyway, I'll have a look at Davis.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Abecedare & Joshua, I will look into a secondary source to support the addition of this book. Pardon my mistake in terminology. The person deleting would have benefitted wikipedia relations by adding this to the comments when deleting. There really is no need to attack another editor nor there good faith edits. Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are attacking other editors' good faith edits by referring to their edits as vandalism.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 17:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Victoria did you see just above where I asked to be pardoned for my mistake in terminology? My mistake in the word used wasn't meant to be an attack, please accept my apology. Next time you delete something I suggest you consider doing what Abecedare did and let the person know the problem so they can rectify it instead of giving a personal critic.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Potential source
See here The article as well as the book might be useful sources. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I had mention the book in the section above but hadn't seen the review. Agree that both potentially contain material worth adding to the current article. Abecedare (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Spelling
Shouldn't the spelling in the lead be भगवद्गीतः rather than भगवद्गीता? — isoham (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Sanskrit one? It is correct as per the intent there. भगवद्गीतः is correct Sanskrit but not intended there. --<span style="font-family: Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif;color: #FF9933">AmritasyaPutra T 17:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How does an incorrect spelling become correct based on an intent? What IS intended there? — isoham (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Sankrit word भगवद्गीता is there for the title of this article Bhagavad Gita. It is not incorrect. The word used in Sanskrit for this subject is भगवद्गीतः, which is not the intent of placing the Sanskrit word here. I am okay if you disagree with me and would like it changed. Other editors can weigh in their opinion, but it may be a slow process because there aren't many English Wikipedia editors who know Sanskrit as well. --<span style="font-family: Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif;color: #FF9933">AmritasyaPutra T 08:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Why is गीता wrong? गीत can be masculine (गीतः) or feminine (गीता, the popular for this text) and may be neuter too. In fact, Monier-williams as well as Apte note गीता. गीता is defined "a song, sacred song or poem , religious doctrines declared in metrical form by an inspired sage (cf. अगस्त्य-गीत्/अ , भगवद्-गीत्/अ [often called गीता], राम-गीत्/अ , शिव-गीत्/अ)" OR "A name given to certain sacred writings in verse (often in the form of a dialogue) which are devoted to the exposition of particular reli- gious and theosophical doctrines; e. g. शिवगीता, रामगीता" -- Redtigerxyz Talk 08:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hindu revivalism and Neo-Hindu movements??? title needs changing, insulting to place on this page
When i see the wiki page section on Neo-christianity, then thats when i will accept a section titled with neo anything on this Bhagavad Gita page!

School kids are looking at this page for exams and research, why would you title such sections like that? Speak to the editors on the bible page to impute a section on its Neo-christianity programs, when i see that happen then we can talk about a Neo hinduism.92.236.96.38 (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Caplock

Date of origin of Bhagavad Gita.
By not fixing the exact time of origin of Bhagavad Gita wikipedia is really hurting the cause of Hinduism. Wikipedia may be publishing many accounts from incompetent sources and in the process garble up the truth. I have seen that happen on many web pages on Hinduism, for example the origin of Sankhya philosophy. I am not opposed to Wikipedia putting up web pages on Hinduism, because on the whole they are good. But if the adminstraters are not able to discern what is accurate, then they should rather keep Hinduism out of their encyclopedia. And Hindus should unite and put up their own web pages and not allow incompetent people to destroy and misrepresent their cultural and religious heritage.

On 18.8.2014, Radhakrishna temple in Mathura celebrated 5240th birthday of Lord Sri Krishna. This would put the delivery of Gita to Arjuna at Kurukshetra before 3150 BCE. At what time the book was compiled and all that is immaterial. This is also connected with the origin of Sankhya because Snakhya and three Gunas are mentioned in Gita (3.3) and Ch. 14. Wikipedia article puts the origin of Sankhya between (400 BCE and 1500 BCE). This is nonsense. Sankhya was the first to mention three Gunas and if they show up in Bhagavad Gita, then Sankhya is much before 3150 BCE. Actually Sankhya is much before any of the Upanishads and Gita is juice of all the upanishads.

Recently a scientist made a comment on a scientific web site that Inertia is a very old concept that goes back to Aristotle (382 - 322 BC). So I had to correct her that concept of Inertia goes back to Kapila and Sankhya which associates one of the three Gunas Tamas with inertia, coarseness, heaviness, obstruction, and sloth.

Another scientist commented: For the first time, Empedocles established four ultimate elements which make all the structures in the universe: fire, air, water, earth. Aristotle later added a fifth element "ether" to describe the void that fills the universe above the terrestrial sphere. So I had to correct this gentleman by informing him that: Regarding your comment on Empedocles (490 BC) and Aristotle (382 - 322 BC) I have to mention that the five elements are mentioned by Sri Krishna (born 3226 BC) in Srimad Bhagavad Gita verses 7.4, 13.5 and 13.32.

Such incidents are so frequent that Hindus are now very much used to them. Kingcircle (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

lawsuits filed
Is there any info on lawsuits filed for use of the gita in courts. Most of bhagvad gita laws seem dubious and catering to female psychology and appears to make decisions very difficult.

If there are none maybe someone with contacts to indian courts should propose abandonement of the bahgvad gita, it is heavily influenced by female psychology anyways and is not core hindu belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.179.143.173 (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Christian Propaganda
The Bhagawad Gita has first spoken exactly 5200 years ago. There is ONLY one single version of the Gita. Christians propagandits want us to believe that Gita "evolved" bla bla undermining the fact that Gita was spoken by God and is being continuosly protected by God since then. The first section of this article is RUBBISH and I'm in no mood to read further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:7A:401:2F22:3489:6002:55D1:6FE (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no Christian Propaganda. This is the what historians and research have found so far. The same case applies to any other religious texts. Have you not read what the Wikipedia says about the Bible? There is no exact date for the Gita so far, and there's no proof that it was written by God. It was written by humans. Knightplex (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bhagavad Gita. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://acharya.iitm.ac.in/sanskrit/gita/dhyana.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713120313/http://www.gitapress.org/ to http://www.gitapress.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

German anti-semitismSection: "Use in German anti-Semitism"
This ection seems undue to me (I've already attributed it):

The reference is as follows: Vishwa, Adluri. Bagchee Joydeep (2014). The Nay Science: A History of German Indology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 289–426. That's 137 pages... Someone tell me where exactly this "info" is given in this source? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC) NB: it probably must be pages 156-313, which contain chapter three, "The search for the original Gita". Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All I can see are snippets surrounding search terms, so lack of context could be a problem, but from p.306 I get “Further, for all that German Indologists claimed to be concerned with Brahmanic oppression of the lower castes, they made no serious efforts at its abatement. Their Brahmans were creatures of their own imagination, caricatures of rabbis drawn with brown chalk.” Nothing about textual layers in this particular passage, but the thrust of the criticism seems to be that the epic was depicted as an original expression of Aryan warrior-caste culture having been corrupted by the decadent, effete priestly class that became its custodians & transmitters. (There are numerous hits for “layers” throughout the book.) BTW I think the authors’ names are getting mixed up: in the section as it stands now they’re cited by their surnames at the beginning and by their forenames at the end, and here you give them inverted.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  17:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * JJ, see HERE. They summarized their book with page numbers.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 17:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviews:
 * Andrew Nicholson, Review of The Nay Science: A History of German Indology by Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee
 * Murali Balaji, Review of The Nay Science: A History of German Indology, International Journal of Dharma and Hindu Studies 1, no. 2 (2016): 105–11
 * Edward P. Butler, John R. Lenz, Antonio Luis Costa Vargas, Doug McGetchin, Bruce M. Sullivan, Jeffery D. Long, Robert Yelle, David Cerequas, Na’aman Hirschfeld, Veena R. Howard and Purushottama Bilimoria (2016), Reviews of The Nay Science, International Journal of Dharma Studies
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The main point of critique by Adluri and Bagchee apparently is not that German Indology was anti-semitic, but that their search for the 'original core' of texts like the Mahabharata was influenced by questionable assumptions, which in turn were influenced by Protestantism and the search for a German identity. They also seem to critique an overly "rational" approach to religious texts, which loses sight of the philosophical and pedagogical use and value of texts. See John R. Lenz, From philology to philosophy: Plato, Nietzsche, Classics, and The Nay Science: "The Nay Science reminds us what the humanities should be: the ethical education of the self, with awareness of mortal human existence in the cosmos. In short: even scholars need to use books to change their lives; and if they don’t, who will?" A valuable and readworthy critique, I think - which may be bypassed by highlighting the specific comments which were used in the quoted passage above from the Wiki-article. Yet, it's also what the authors themselves highlight:
 * yet, I wonder if this belongs here, or at Indology or a another, related page?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * yet, I wonder if this belongs here, or at Indology or a another, related page?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)