Talk:Bhagavan

Untitled
Please merge this article with Bhagwan. 202.68.145.230 08:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe that the paragraph discussing the Rajneeshees is relevant to this topic at all, and suggest that it be removed or displaced somewhere more appropriate. Solace098 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect this group was a part of the Rajneesh movement. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is often referred to as Bhagwan. I added a link to that article in top, since many people who search for "Bhagwan" are probably thinking of those red-clad people. Maybe we need a disambiguation page instead. // habj 06:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Gaurangaji, what do you mean by "ƒ" in words like "aśeṣataƒḥ"? It looks weird. Also, "the personality of 'Parashara Rishi'" looks strange, imho. Why not just "sage P.R."? 82.208.2.214 09:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Jan/VEDA


 * Hello again Jan - I'm not sure where the "ƒ" came from? If I have added anything to the Sanskrit by mistake then please correct it. My browser might not have copied the text correct when I cut & pasted it? I added 'the personality Parashara Rishi' to make it clear where the source is coming from (i.e a character or personality from the text) in a manner which also complied to WP:NPOV. You might like to think about creating an account? Best Wishes, ys, Gouranga(UK) 16:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, cutting and pasting is the reason. I'm on a public network and my IP can change anytime. So in past I've been contributing under several IPs. Jan/VEDA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.208.2.214 (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

master of the vagina?
This book says that Bahgwan translates as 'master of the vagina'. Is there any truth to this?--Auric (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bhagavan and Bahgwan (assuming no typos) may be different. Even if they are same, the translation is a WP:FRINGE theory. I have seen no book having such a meaning. The word is usually translated as "Lord", "Supreme Godhead" etc. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup Required
I am adding a banner for clean up on this page because it's sadly lacking in both sources and authoritative translations. There are also issues with tone, neutrality and clarity. I'd exhort any subject-matter experts to take up the work of fixing this page. Sreesarmatvm talkcontribs 02:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Bhagavan is the God-head said by the people of Indic language and God must be discussed only by the God's words not by the human-words. But this article is another attempt to make our Creator personalized which attempt is coming up to this day with the very idea committed the Creator polluted as creatures, such as Christian tried to establish Jesus/Isa as a son of God. This article starts with a image of Krishna who was only a mortal 'avatar' i.e. a mortal descended [in islamic idea its equivalent is 'rasul'] by the Everlasting Creator but the imagery avatar has been introduced in the face of the write-up as 'God'. Wikipedia has to rethink about the difference between the immortal Creator and the mortal creatures. I wish to edit this manipulated article with the help of comparative words from our Almighty Creator .Ajoy Mandravin (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bhagavan. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926235140/http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/2/11/en1 to http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/2/11/en1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150609215607/http://www.orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/jun2004/englishpdf/pillar.pdf to http://www.orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/jun2004/englishpdf/pillar.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

removal of mostly unsourced, original research
Hi Wikipedians,

I'm doing a CE run-through on this article and see a few things that need tidying up.

1. This bit looks to be original research. There are no provided sources -sorry there's a citation to a dictionary entrance. It seems like analysis done by the author. It is also formatted very poorly, but I won't bother rewriting it since the content is not reliably sourced. I'm fixing it by removing it. I checked out the source and the section below is purely original research - this is not analysis done by an independent scholar. The editor who added the info probably did the research and analysis.

Bhagavān comes into existence because of two words bhag and wan...wan means to possess and the meaning of the word bhag is clearly given in Vishnu Puran 6.5.74

Bhag includes:1) complete opulences 2) complete strength 3) complete fame 4) complete wealth 5) complete knowledge 6) complete renounciation''. In modern usage, Bhagavān is synonymous with Ishvara, Devatā, Hari or Prabhu, in some schools of Hinduism. Bhagavan is alternatively spelled as Bhagvān, Bhagwan or Bhagawan. The word is, in some sects, used as an honorific title for a spiritual leader considered fully enlightened by the sect. The word is also a proper noun and used as a first name for boys.''

2. I flagged the article for further copy editing, and also for having original research. It needs better sourcing to non-primary, reliable sources. There are some issues with the point of view and tone; rather than sounding encyclopedic, some of the article sounds to be professing the views, rather than explaining them. I'm not well versed enough in the topic to rewrite the article, although I can tell it needs further polishing.

Acronym? Really?
"Bhagavān itself is an acronym of the combination of the 5 elements of nature. Bha means Bhoomi (Earth), Ga means gaggan (Space/Sky), Va means Vayu (Air), A means Agni (Fire) and finally, N means Neer (Water)" -- isn't that more like a Backronym, i.e. a later interpretation of an already existing non-acronymic term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.39.218.10 (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)