Talk:Bhagavata Purana/Archive 1

Regarding to the date of this text See Antiquity of Bhagavatam (MA thesis by Horacio Francisco Arganis Juarez - summary)In http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/sb.htm Prfr. Horacio Francisco Arganis Juarez Lic. B. S. and M.A. Researcher from IEFAC, IBCH and U A de C. Saltillo City, Caoh. Northest of Mexico —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.22.210 (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

When merging Bhagavata Purana with Bhagavatha-Purana, I kept all of the material except for the following passages:


 * "This text was based upon the Bhagavad Gita."
 * "It is considered as the very essence of the vedas according to sacred Hindu scriptures."
 * "It is claimed in Hindu scripture that the thorough reading of this book from beginning to end will definitely enable the reader to achieve complete god realisation."

I was unable to find a reliable source for the first passage. The latter two need to specify which Hindu scriptures they are referring to in order to be encyclopedic. -Didactohedron 23:14, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Pirate links
I have deleted links to two pirate sites: bhagavata.net and bhagavata.org.

These sites knowingly and persistently bootleg copyrighted artwork and book-length copyrighted text belonging to the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Further information is available from the rights and permissions department of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, www.bbt.info.

The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Copyrights, in Section 4.3, "Linking to copyrighted works."

O Govinda 11:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is correct. Per Copyrights, we should not link to those sites. I have removed the links. Tom Harrison Talk 01:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Response from the "Pirate"
The version of the bhāgavata purāna at bhagavata.org and bhagavata.net is part of the distribution policy of the Bhāgavatam of a select company of elderly ISKCON devotees in the Netherlands. It is offered to and appreciated by his holiness Sri Kadamba Kanana Swami, the official ISKCON sannyāsi and representative in the Netherlands and may, by those unaware of this, according vaishnava etiquette not be excluded, brought down, degraded, compromised, repressed or discriminated as is ignorantly depicted above. It is the only full version of the holy book in the Dutch language, there is no other one. Excluding this would discriminate the 10.000 visitors the book has each week on the internet. Anand Aadhar as such may be considered the successor (by his widow blessed) of Sri Hayeshvar das, who before him took care of the still used and distributed translations of Prabhupāda's works in the Dutch language. There was an ISKCON fray about him too with false abusive devotees claiming Prabhupāda's authority. They opposing this core service in Holland, all blooped and fell down, including the sannyāsis associated with the offense; and so it happend with the critics of Aadhar. The writer of the above comment is surely no reliable, wise, aware or conscious representative of the ISKCON interest, since he campaigns against what ISKCON devotees in Holland need, do and use since the earliest days of the Krishna mission in the Netherlands. The honor of Prabhupāda is by these devotees in Holland not harmed or compromised but rather defended. The work, the daring task of progressing with the Bhāgavatam, continues, and has to continue. We are never done with this book. They who claim a one-line fixation of the book are ignorant of Lord Caitanya's defense of the 61 versions of the so-called âtmârâma-verse. The version in English is offered in courtesy so that one may know in what sense Krishna in the philosophical and free-thinker, reform-minded realm of Holland is progressing in taking up the karma. This policy followed is national dharma. Let not ignorance, false ego and possessiveness prevail in this holy enterpise of the Reformer that is Lord Caitanaya! We after all have free press and fight against the 'I and mine' demon so rampant in the western world. Copyright-claims over the works do, on top of that, in this case, not hold since: 
 * 1) the ISKCON-texts are used quote by quote and not as a running text; of each page the length of the purports has not been copied. So there is no question of copying entire texts as O Govinda suggests; it is thus fair use and no violation. The images are copyright of the separate devotees of whom none objected to our knowledge. The permission BBT has to use them in their publications gives no exclusive right over them what so ever. All the world uses them by the way in books, on t-shirts, websites and whatever; it is holy material offered in devotion to the Lord and, scripturally, no one may claim ownership as BBT tries to. 
 * 2) for any one working at the Bhāgavatam it is the formally prescribed method to refer to the Sanskrit and paramparā source before presenting his own realization, 
 * 3) it is ISKCON itself using in Holland - be it informally, for things are not definite - the dutch materials, the texts and the music of the site in their distribution, for necessity is command, what else can they do to be complete vi-bhagavit?
 * 4) all money raised by the distribution, in CD-rom format as yet, of this version of the book, directly benefitted ISKCON, and indeed not BBT- the problem thus. Anand Aadhar never touched one penny for himself, invested all donations he received himself in the project, and has as yet paid for all costs of the project himself without demanding or receiving any financial support from ISKCON.

Thus, in conclusion, sorry, we can't yield to this formalist repression of ignorant and blinded commercialist socalled 'leaders and representatives' of ISKCON compromising sincere followers, believers and acclaimed devotees. There is, after all, no other way of progressing with Krishna but by taking up the work. Anyone following the paramparā method of reference as so exemplary is respected by Aadhar, can do exactly the same, since it is Prabhupāda who commanded it as the way of the devotee. We have to continue this way and not all be losers in square nihilism cramping about control, notably all being in service of the Lord, the actual Controller, who is also progress, expansion, character and necessity.

out of love for Krishna and His devotees

Anand Aadhar prabhu

--rpba 11:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir - I'm personally shocked at the strength of your objection to this website being removed, when www.srimadbhagavatam.org already listed gives the full text of Prabhupada's translation in the English language. It doesn't look good for your organisation to have such heated discussions over a link on a webpage - maybe you should contact the BBT directly about some of these issues, rather than on a public forum such as this? Best Wishes, ys GourangaUK 12:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalizing alternative views
Could the general Wiki moderator please prevent mr. O Govinda from vandalizing anything that is not his personal taste? He deleted, most unscientific, and politically motivated, with false pretenses of authority and ownership over materials of other devotees that BBT tries to make money with, many more links from alternative sites of devotees but the ones to bhagavata.org and .net. Let mr. Govinda first prove himself what his 'I am God' authority scripturally would justify concerning materials of acaryas and devotees. Stop the materially motivated in the disguise of devotees. It is Hiranyaksha in person! Please Lord Varaha help us slay this demon! --rpba 10:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please help us slay this demon?? Very scientific and unpolitically motivated I'm sure. The nature of Wikipedia is open debate as to the content of any page, thus discussions, deletions, edits and reversions will happen quite regularly.
 * If something is in breach of copyright then according to Wiki policy it has to be removed. If you feel the web-page linked is not in breach of copyright then I'm not sure exactly how this would be resolved? There are already sufficient links to online versions of the Bhagavatam in English in the article which are definitely not copyrighted, so if the copyright of another page is in dispute I'd side with not including it untill a time where the debate is settled on a legal basis. Just trying to help. Regards, GourangaUK 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A Scandal
Gentlemen it's a scandal this intolerance between devotees intimidating. We also deleted the BBT links because the version of them presented there isn't even entirely written by Prabhupada as they claim. So that info is also false. Shame all of you. None are deserving

Nrisimha


 * Dear Nrisimha. Please discuss the article content in a constructive manner without resorting to such tactics. I will revert your edits, and ask for intervention from an administrator if any more personal insults or illogical reversions are made. Why overreact in this way? GourangaUK 13:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Boy! I was writing the same exact thing to you on the Vaishnava article for the srangle hold that you held on it GourangaUK! See, all this ISKON/Gaudiya Math/Gaudiya Sampradayam in-fight MUST be taken into consideration when dealing with these articles, especially when trying to have fair, balanced,non-bias articles. There has to be a General administrator or some kind of mediator from Wikipedia for this kind of thing. And, thats why every motive, every sentence, every paragraph,every book and every quote from an ISKON/Gaudiya Math/Gaudiya Sampradayam person MUST BE scrutenize before publishing on Wiki. articles. All most all of the discussion section of this is FILLED with this dysfunctional ISKON/Gaudiya in-fighting. It is mind-boggling.I really feel that Wikipedia must do some thing...immediately. I will be contacting Wikipedia within the next couple of days about this.Govinda Ramanuja dasaUSA 17:00, 23 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Fallen
Gouranga,  My personal opinion is that you are all fallen souls, revert that. Read S.B. 3.18 & 19

Aadhar (without the Ananda)

Truth
It is truly Kali yuga now (iron age, era of quarrel and strife), that can now not be stopped but we have to do our best to work with eachother to make it not a living hell! A devotee of our Lord (Krishna) only has the duty to work for Him and only to serve Him the best he/she can. He says in the Gita: "It is better to be unsuccessful with ones own duty than to perform perfect minding another's business as doing work restricted to one's own nature one will never run into offense." Also: But with all these activities must without doubt, performing them out of duty, the association with their results be given up; that, o son or Pritha, is My last and best word on it".

It seems that O Govinda and GourangaUK have not completely read the 'Response from the Pirate', (to call someone a pirate is already an offence against sincere devotees); they prove their lack of understanding and devotion in their above replies. On top of it, it is they who disgrace the whole society of devotees! Why condemn your fellow man/women in their devotional service, why resent the devotional service of others? If one puts money or a good position in society on top of one's wishing list, then one is sure to fall down. Everything belongs to Krishna and the person who knows this and strives to serve Him is sure to be blessed, because Krishna says: I will bring him what he needs.

One will find sincere devotees with ISKCON but the political/money-striving at BBT! They are jealous, disgruntled and causing people heart-felt pain! This has to stop. I fully support the sincere striving devotee, who only has Krishna as his savior and true soul! ' Bhajahu Re Mana - Sing o mind, of Mine'!

Sakhya devi dasi /30-6-06


 * Dear Sakhya devi dasi - I have thoroughly read the above comments. They are full of personal insults against other editors; fundamental philosophy irrelevant to the issue at hand; and criticisms of members of ISKCON. Do you really think that gives your organisation a good name when people will read the above? As I see it there are two logical arguments:


 * 1) The contents of your website are identical/virtually identical to the writing of Bhaktivedanta Swami and thus the copyright of the BBT. If their permission has not been obtained you are legally in breach of copyright and it is therefore acceptable for them to request the website removed. The logical course of action would seem to be to contact them directly by email or telephone as I believe they are vitually part of the same organisation as yourself.


 * 2) The contents are significantly different to the writings of Bhaktivedanta Swami. Thus they are not in breach of any copyright. But then as part of ISKCON why would you siginificantly change the writings of your own spiritual master? I very much doubt you'd agree with this.


 * Or you could choose to continue with making outbursts on this page, although I sincerely hope you don't take this option.


 * Begging your co-operation in this matter, GourangaUK 08:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Progress
GourangaUK...

Choose from these two:
 * a: I don't read what others write and only hear what I want to hear.
 * b: I read and know what others say, and will this time try not to refuse to accept that progress is needed; after all the paramparâ has had more versions before Prabhupâda and will also have many after him; would the succession end with him? And how would you and me not be part of the succession? Aren't we all His limbs? I very much doubt you'd disagree with this.

And why do we have "outbursts" while I would be holy?

Don't you write yourself: "Don't be stuck up in a system. The system is required provided if you make progress towards the realization of the Goal. But if you simply follow a system but do not make advance in the matter of realizing the Goal, then it is simply labor of love. It has no value."

haribol

Aadhar

---

It seems we would all benefit from cooling down.

Here, as I see it, is the issue:


 * Wikipedia policy says we shouldn't link to sites that infringe on copyrights--that is, that make big use of material copyrighted by someone else and don't have the copyright holder's permission.


 * The sites Bhagavata.net and Bhagavata.org reproduce artwork and text published and copyrighted by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Aadhar, do you disagree with these points? Or do you say you have the Book Trust's permission? Or do you assert some third alternative?

Please, let's not talk about one another's character or motives. Let us first hear from you, Aadhar, what you'd like us to understand to be the answers to these questions.

Thank you, everyone, for your patience.

Respectfully, O Govinda 10:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies
Dear Sir,

my apologies, I realise now that you are not officially part of ISKCON and have your own personal system of Yoga (see www.bhagavata.org/c/8/AnandAadhar.html). Your mention of Kadamba Kanana Swami had led me to initially believe otherwise. Thus the second point I made above is to a large extent irrelevant in your case. I hope you can forgive me for this error - I will leave you to discuss the copyright issue with O Govinda.

Om Tat Sat, GourangaUK 11:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay apologies accepted. We embrace ISKCON even though they, as yet, do not love us that much. Aadhar --rpba 12:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Issue continued
By the way, I see that within the last few minutes you or someone else has restored the links to those sites. Okay, fine. If I was going to call for some cool discussion, I probably should have left them alone.

So before we enter another pointless round of reverting and restoring--or go on to further ways for resolving Wikipedia disputes--let's discuss the points above.

Okay?

Respectfully, O Govinda 10:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC) --- Okay Govinda, let's talk about it. Read first the four points on copyrights I gave in my first defense. I insist that no rights have been breached and thus have the full right to be respected as a righteous reference.  Aadhar --rpba 10:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

--- Thank you, Aadhar. I've reviewed your four points. Here is my response:


 * 1. Your first argument is "fair use." Because you intersperse the copyrighted material with other material, you say, that makes the use fair.


 * That would be true for "a quotation here, a quotation there." But when you reproduce (as you have) whole chapters of translations done by someone else, or (again as you have) all the word-for-word meanings and translations for an entire book ("Bhagavad-gita As It Is"), the use is so substantial in extent that it's no longer fair.


 * And the pictures are indeed copyrighted.


 * 2. You cite a need to refer to respected traditional sources. But the extent of your use of copyrighted texts far outpaces that need.


 * 3. I'm not quite sure I understand your third point. It seems to be "ISKCON uses all this, and therefore so can I." ISKCON, however, has a license from the copyright holder, and you do not. That seems to invalidate your point.


 * 4. Your fourth point seems to be "You can use someone else's copyrighted material as much as you want, as long as you don't make money on it." This is simply not true. It's not that, for example, I could print 10,000 copies of "The Da Vinci Code" and call it fair use, as long as I give the profit to The Salvation Army. Your argument simply doesn't fly.

This is how I look at it. But clearly you see it the opposite way.

If you could work cooperatively in such a way as to reach an agreement with the copyright holder, that would solve the whole problem. But I don't know whether you can do that.

Alternatively, if you have a site where you use only your own material, or material in the public domain, without heavily reproducing the copyrighted works of others, you could link here to that site.

So now what?

Respectfully, O Govinda 16:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

-

Dear Govinda,

There is no other way prabhu, 
 * 1) I do not quote any running text, no whole chapters, for they comprise purports I do not copy; I only use one verse at a time that I, and I am not sorry for it, necessarily have to discuss according
 * 2) the paramparâ method that says first give the previous version and the word for word. Thus I obey. Otherwise I cannot do my work. I cannot link to the vedabase directly; that would violate the independence of the site. I would be invalidated if vedabase is out of the air, or would be down along with your server, which happens to all of us webmasters so now and then. Why not this sameness, what's the worry, what's wrong with this back-up to your fine service, why object to your own honor?
 * 3) How can a servant obeying the command of the âcârya be in offense of whatever right he 'owns'? And what would ownership be in this - I insist- scriptural context? Remember the Gita 2:47 on this: to do your duty, ok, but one has no rights over the fruits what so ever. Is your 'law', 'authority' or 'command' bigger than that of Krishna? I don't think so.
 * 4) What other reasons than the financial would there be to ban people from using the texts and such? There is one, namely that of preventing abuse of the text and images, but, since I follow procedure, this other argument of possible disrespective, and twisting use does not apply. In fact it is you who defend a double bind: not following my procedure I would be an heretic, and when I do follow, you deny me the right. This is driving people crazy!! Further: Your suggestion to link up with the 'my-texts-only' option, you have deleted yesterday when I did link up to our 'my-text-only' version of the book. So you ask for something you don't want and you demand for something you are not willing to give yourself. Double standards are no basis for reasonable agreement prabhu.

 So let's close the argument now and let me do my devotional service. Please I beg you, create no further trouble. No one complains but you, with, to me, incomprehensible impersonalist formalism. What do you really want? My undivided attention? My blind obedience and submission to a demigod-thing like the BBT? Lord Caitanya says: mat-prâna-nâthas tu sa eva nâparah meaning, I serve the Lord and no one else. So where are your quotes of loyalty? Now, that would be paramparâ validity! I cannot and will not stop serving Krishna, Prabhupâda and His devotees the way it should. This is my last word about it. No more Kali.

Chant and be happy with all the service we offer,<Br> Gratitude and example is the way to God, and not the effort to defile and control the behavior of others, however poor that behavior might be.<Br> Have faith man, hang loose and don't be such a square. Honest.<Br>

In respect of Prabhupâda above all 'rules and regulations'

Aadhar--rpba 08:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Are you aware of O Govinda's conclusions right below this?


 * Aadhar--


 * It's true, you have not copied whole books. You have left out the purports. But (aside from the copied artwork) you have copied the word-for-word meanings and the translations for the entire Bhagavad-gita As It Is (700 verses) and the entire Srimad-Bhagavatam (17,000 verses), all of which are copyrighted.


 * That goes way beyond fair use.


 * As for your other points--essentially about what is "spiritually right"--that is a subject for discussion elsewhere. Here, what we're concerned with is whether or not a link to your site would violate the policies of Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia does value copyrights, and because your site infringes on them, linking here to your site goes against Wikipedia policy.


 * Or is there something I'm overlooking?


 * Respectfully, O Govinda 14:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

--- Dear Govinda

As I said, fairness and necessity, who will be the judge of that? I understand what you mean by fair, but I see the necessity of what I do and say: all in love - for Krishna - is fair. Do you see that too? If it can't be as it should, it should be as it can. That also might be a legal decision. Do you know the jurisprudence in this? Do we need a materialist judge for that? Is he the greater one then? That is not our honor! Again thus, who of us two or three then, would be the greater judge? You? Wikipedia? I? We all exist by the Lord His mercy, let Him decide. If you or I can prove himself to be the avatâra, the original owner, let His judgement decide. Alas there is no Prabhupada anymore for us to tell us in this case what and who. But I remember what he said about the use of natural resources: ''are you the owner of the ore, the gold and diamonds you find in the earth? Isn't that the Lord?''

Hoping for closure and peace, haribol

Aadhar--rpba 08:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Aadhar, for your response.


 * You ask, Who will judge? Well, since this is Wikipedia, if we can't decide this among ourselves we will need to seek help from third parties, such as a Wikipedia administrator.


 * As I've said before, the Wikipedia rule about linking to copyrighted material used without permission is quite clear: It's against Wikipedia policy.


 * But, okay, let's look at this from a spiritual point of view. You say, "Alas there is no Prabhupada anymore for us to tell us in this case what and who." Fortunately, Srila Prabhupada, the author of most of the material you're using, provided for that. Before he left he formed a Book Trust, entrusted to it his copyrights, and appointed trustees to (among other things) make decisions about those copyrights on his behalf. So if you respect the author, you should respect the decisions made by his trustees.


 * The other authors whose works you have used without permission have also entrusted their copyrights to the Book Trust. So if you respect those authors, again you should respect the decisions of the trustees.


 * So, looking at the matter either spiritually or materially we arrive at the same point:


 * If you have spiritual respect for the authors you should respect the right of their representatives to decide what you may or may not publish.


 * And if you have respect for the laws of Wikipedia, you should respect the law that linking from Wikipedia to copyrighted material used without permission is not allowed.


 * Either way, those links have to go. It would be good of you to agree.


 * Respectfully, O Govinda 20:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Govinda

If someone like Prabhupâda or another devotee entrusts you with copyrights, doesn't that mean that you are entrusted with the all judgement of justice in that, especially not against his spirit. In this case, Wikipedia cannot decide by their 'laws', because this is matter of obedience and closing ranks to the world of illusion. If I obey Prabhupâda, who demands the method of reference discussing the holy texts (to give the Sanskrit word for word, and the previous version also), to my opinion that overrules the entrusted right to you. The pictures surely will not be objected against by any of the artists since vedabase does not present them, nor does any site elsewhere systematically to the texts. Prabhupâda explicitely stressed the presentation with pictures. So also in this I obey. So vedabase doesn't meet the purpose while I do. Actually I should also present the purports, but that is a less absolute demand I managed to drop and thus do keep the motive and advantage for also buying your books. No harm done. That was a fair compromise I thought.

Another point to take notice of is that bhagavata.org was there first on the net in jan. 2000, because BBT was lax in their presentation that came only later. That was one of my motives to start with this. So it is understandable the way i've built the site, and that offers another argument in my favor. Why should I alter my ways for people following me? You didn't even thank me for it you know, nor do you presently match the requirements of presentation that Prabhupâda demands. He also said: use your own intelligence; and: when will you ever learn to be intelligent? So you are in offense relative to him and not I. So what do we call your attitude in this in normal lay terms? You are hitting your own acarya's servant! Would he approve? Children are known to be stricter than their parents in educating brothers and sisters. But I am not your younger brother thus, I was first born on the net in this simply doing what the acaryas told me to: the esteemed Kadamba and (former) Suhotra swami both independently of each other advised me to do devotional service with the computer. That is the mandate I work with, and the rest is simple logic. What, with my capacity, should I do else? I am paramparâ correct.

Sorry prabhu, I think we better burry the hatchet and leave things be. This out of respect for the time, the person, the acarya, the painters who need their services to be acknowledged too, the peace and bliss of the Lord, and for the other devotee customers who have tuned in, are happy and grew accustomed to our presentations as they are - as you also did after all (partly). So I remain with my obedience saying that what I do Prabhupâda would have never objected since I follow the method, and offer a unique service like presenting things in Dutch, and offer pictures and bhajan music no one employs either, a promotion in which BBT also fails, nor is appreciative of, while everybody, still, and more and more, is pleased with it. So please, for Krishna's sake, lets use our sane mind and stop the formalist argument 'with-a-dagger-in-hand' which serves no one nor any devotional or financial purpose, nor any decency and respect in fact. My work only, to your advantage, advertised and promoted the bhâgavatam that the BBT sells. I've referred many buyers to your site for buying copies, since we don't sell any of our version (that you didn't print either, so I don't compete). There was no appreciation, nor full capacity to obtain it, for all of this from your side, nor do I demand that from you folks, but some integrity in respect of a (relatively) good job done (never good enough of course) and like assistence and support delivered, might be on its place I think.

And please don't try to have the last word in this but with a positive and constructive one, you know this diplomatic campaign ends in war (as Prabhupâda explained it) if we don't find the mutual respect devotees should always maintain according their etiquette. Let's not prepare for a second Prabhâsa dear Yadu-brother! We had the taste already. There are ten thousand visitors each week at the site, that you offend and threaten too. I guess that is quite a bit of ISKCON involved then... So let's close this at the win-win situation we have now.

Still love you for Krishna, despite the pain i.t.b.

Aadhar--213.84.172.15 11:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Dear administrator, Mr. Harrison

You without further taking notice of this discussion removed our links. Are we of reason here? Clearly the copyright claim of Govinda is not quite justified or beyond reasonable doubt. Thus why this death penalty? I have restored the Links therefore.

With all respect

Aadhar--rpba 08:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Aadhar - having viewed your website, I don't know how you can claim using the BBT images without their permission is not in breach of copyright? GourangaUK 08:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Restoring material deleted from this page
Today I've reverted this page to the latest version of 17 July to restore a discussion later deleted. On 20 August, Aadhar wrote:


 * Is it correct to remove other contributons to the discussion on this? Isn't that abuse Govinda & Harrison? Speaking about being fair... what is a discussion page good for deleting the answers to your so-called absolutes of judgement?

I agree with him that such material from the talk page shouldn't be deleted. Among other reasons: Should Aadhar wish to submit his links to other Wikipedia pages, other editors will have the discussion here to refer to.

I think there's a way to archive the material, isn't there?

Respectfully, O Govinda 13:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Mary Pat Fisher
Dear devotees. It is not a good idea to have personal opinions on people, even though cited. There are thousands of published commentaries about Bhagvatam by different people. If everyone starts putting their opinions, then the real spirit of the Bhagvatam would be suppresed with conflicting and competing view points. Hence it would be a good idea to completely do away with this section of 'Mary Pat Fisher'. YS Jbarot 06:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Jbarot


 * I agree and have removed the paragraph - the whole page needs a re-write to describe the contents of the Bhagavatam much more clearly as you have expressed below. Best Wishes, ys Gouranga(UK) 10:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Incarnations of Vishnu
With no other details present, it seems as if Bhagvatam deals only with incarnations of Vishnu, when actually it is much more than that. Hence this section can be more precise and compact or may be completely done away with. Rather a short note on each of the 12 cantos be provided. Contrary to current status of GA-class article, it hardly gives any precise and correct idea about the subject matter to some one who has no idea about it. YS Jbarot 06:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Jbarot


 * The person who added "GA status" doesn't know how they work. There never was a GA nomination and it isn't mentioned on the list of GAs here. I also don't believe "Top" importance (which is the highest you can get) is a fair classification considering is not a text most Hindus have even heard of. "Top" should be kept for the 100 most important things in Hinduism, lot of which will be gods/goddesses, core texts (Vedas, Gita), concepts (dharma, karma) most sacred places etc. I agree that this article is very limited in its scope. The ratings and article need to be fixed as quickly as possible. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 06:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the top importance given to the article is OK. Bhagvatam is definitely one of the important scriptures and the ripened fruit of all vedic knowledge. The only point that I was trying to make is that, the content only contains 'Incarnations of Vishnu', which is not enough to describe the actual content of the Purana. Jbarot 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have amended the tags today - GA was definitely not appropriate in the articles current state. Jbarots note above regarding a short summary of each canto sounds like a good idea to me. I have also removed the list of avatars and added a link to the main Avatar article where the subject is explained in more detail. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

HEAVILY BIASED and Sentimental
It gives me great pain to see this page which is heavily biased based on personal sentiments. Look at the starting Paragraph ..

"Earlier sections of the literature contain stories of devotees and objects of their devotion: the various avataras of Krishna or Vishnu. The most famous section is the 10th Canto, which deals in detail with the story of Krishna's appearance and pastimes in Vrindavan."

It gives very ambiguous meaning. Why do people say that the 10th canto is the most famous canto, almost every chapter has got it's own significance. Also the 10th chapter does not contain ONLY the pastimes of Sri Krishna in Vrindavan, It has his entire life details. This introductory paragraph only reflects the personal sentiments. Please do not try to push your own sentiments in a encyclopedic page as wikipedia, which is difficult to moderate.

Please describe in such a way that scholars of the past have described in various puranas, commenteries. NOT personal ideas of what Bhagavata Purana is. Saravana Kumar K 13:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you disagree with the presentation, feel free to edit the article. Chopper Dave


 * This is just another article that has a definite, heavy ISKON/Gaudiya slant to it. It is getting tiring to come to article after article after article with such heavy or subtle ISKON/Gaudiy slants to it. I have been fighting with an ISKON person on the Vaishnava article for FOUR months! We need Wikipedia to put a mediator for all of these articles to maintain a non-bias, truthful,concise,non-"group", balanced sense to them. The Bhagavata purana is about the different incarnations....of VISHNU. And, not the ISKON/Gaudiya "idea" of Krishna coming before Vishnu or that Vishnu came from Krishna. Govinda Ramanuja dasaUSA 17:45, 23 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Bhagavata Wiki
I restored the link to the bhagavata wiki. It is a useful addition free from copyright infringement or other objections. rpba (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag
This article seems fairly up to the "wiki" standard now. Shouldn't we remove the cleanup tag?

Hari (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is looking better. I have done some more work on the introduction and removed the tag. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias
"Śrīmad Bhāgavatam is accepted as the essence of all Vedic literature and Vedantic philosophy. Whoever tastes the transcendental mellow of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam is never attracted to any other literature."(12.13.15)[1]" Why do I feel that this is sending out a message of superiority over the Vedas? Still, it is not actually part of the Vedas(Rig, Sama, Yajur, Atharva in their Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads!) Always remember the difference between Smriti and Shruti texts! I realise that as Puranas they convey their own message this one obviously supports Vaishnava(Gaudiya) theology but the person who put this here is obviously trying to convey a message to other Vedantists!Domsta333 (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Domsta333 (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Domsta, the Bhagavata purana is not exclusive to the ISKON/Gaudiya Sampradayam, but to every one in the Hindu community. They (ISKON) beleives that this shastra is exculsively theirs...but, it isnt. And, they intrepret this purana through the lense of their particular "group" beleifs;i.e. speculations and concoctions. I have been editting and visiting Wikipedia for some time now. And a number of articles have had HEAVY to subtle ISKON slant to them. They believe that their speculations and beleifs are the correct ones and that it is superior to all others in the Hindu community. Every thing that ISKON/Gaudiya Sampradayam does is for the push of their "group believe" and for "Preaching" or indoctrinization purposes. All this ISKON/Gaudiya Math/Gaudiya Sampradayam in-fight on this discussion page MUST be taken into consideration when dealing with these articles, especially when trying to have fair, balanced,non-bias articles. I have fought for four months with an ISKON person on the bias on the Vaishnava article. There has to be a General administrator or some kind of mediator from Wikipedia for this kind of thing. And, thats why every motive, every sentence, every paragraph,every book and every quote from an ISKON/Gaudiya Math/Gaudiya Sampradayam person MUST BE scrutenize with trainned, actual, reliable, Indian Brahmana pandits from the Sri Sampradayam or another Orthodox hindu Brahmana group before publishing on Wiki. articles. Almost all of the discussion section of this is FILLED with this dysfunctional ISKON/Gaudiya in-fighting. It is mind-boggling.I really feel that Wikipedia must do some thing...immediately. I will be contacting Wikipedia within the next couple of days about this.!Govinda Ramanuja dasaUSA (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Govinda Ramanuja. You are simply using this talk page as an excuse to expound your own personal dislike of ISKCON. This is an encyclopedia, not a political soapbox. Instead of complaining, why not improve the article? Please add more information. The article requires a lot of improvement. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear GourangaUK, I am stating the fact about the tendencies of ISKON. The fact that many articles related to Vaishnavism have heavy to subtle ISKON slant to them must be stated. I am not complaining! These issues must be addressed. When you have a "group" that almost dominates very article about any thing to do with Vaishnavism. And, that pushes ONLY for their own "group" beliefs...like I have experienced with you in the past with the Vaishnava article...what am I to do? I have written many emails to about this...and, I might write more. The next step that I see right now,...is maybe legal assistance.Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 21:45, 24 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)


 * Dear Govinda Ramanuja, writing letters is not going to help. I like your explanation of facts you recently made on the Vaishnavism talk page. From that I am able to see your point of view, and then from there I believe we should be able to work together to improve the page. Without being specific, your comments sound simply like complaints against an organisation. Once you supply facts then it is a useful basis to work from. I am not some fanatic, or mindless robot, I am a person like you, and if I can help I will. But need some information to go on. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

DATE
Can someone put some sensible dates here? Not to hurt Hindu sensibilities, fine to mention the traditional dating etc, but I just looked up Miocene-Pliocene and that was several million years ago! Also the Wikipedia says the Vedas are the world's oldest religious texts, surely that should keep Hindu nationalists happy. My copy of the Bhagavata Purana says it came together as we know it about 500-900CE, obviously from a long oral tradition but also just as obviously not 3000BCE. I don't understand why people are so timid about providing a date. Something on authorship would be nice too. It's not like we says Moses wrote Genesis in 1000 BC and leave it at that.

I removed the following line:

As such, the Bhagavata Purana is sometimes referred to as "the real Bible of Krishnaism" because on the reference page the Bhagavad Gita is referred to as "the real Bible of Krishnaism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.157.151.226 (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I put in a new paragraph in the significance section. Hope its to everyone's approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.99.134 (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this article contains a very significant contradiction that needs to be attended to.

I believe the following two statements are contradictory to the other:

Its primary focus is the process of bhakti yoga (loving devotion to the Supreme Lord) in which Vishnu and/or Krishna is understood as the Supreme all-embracing God of all gods (Bhagavan).

Each section or canto describes specific avatars of Vishnu, beginning with a summary of all avatars in the first canto concluding with description of Krishna as Svayam bhagavan.

How can we say "concluding with description of Krishna as Svayam bhagavan" and also say Vishnu and/or Krishna. We need to make the readers aware of the difference in interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.99.134 (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone changes my edit to the first paragraph then you have to realize your in contradiction to the third paragraph's first sentence. And since the first sentence of the third paragraph seems to be a consensus, how then can you change my edit to the first paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.99.134 (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

avatar of God?
The Bhagavata Purana contains the following verse:

All of the above mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord S'rî Krishna is the original personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists The Lord incarnates to protect the theists. (1:3:28).

That is why I changed Vishnu to Krishna. Krishna is the greater and more appropriate name.


 * That is an absolute ISKON/Gaudiya speculation. There are many of Sri Sampradayam Pandits that can refute that "group" idea. There are a number Vaishnava Sri Sampradayam Swamis that totally refutes and gives the proper interpretation...according to the original Vaishnava understanding, before the Gaudiya "group" came around in the 15th cent. According the original standards and principles of the Vedas,Ramanujacharya and the Sri Sampradayam...Sri Krishna is a Vibhava-avatara form of Narayana. Krishna is Narayana. Narayana, the Four-armed form in Vaikunta is the Param form of VishnuGovinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 21:45, 24 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)


 * I don't understand how the most central truth of the Bhagavad Gita and the Bhagavata Purana cannot be understood by some readers. It's not like they say this in one or two obscure verses - these entire texts revolve around who Krishna is. This is really my last post here. Because I just don't understand. This is not a Gaudiya view point. This would seem like the most obvious conclusion by anyone that read the Bhagavad Gita or the Bhagavata Purana. They tell us who Krishna is in so many many different ways - that I don't understand how one cannot understand who He is. But believe in what you believe. You worship Krishna in your worship of Vishnu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.99.134 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A question...Are you reading non-ISKON translations? Or are you reading only ISKON Translations. Any one will tell you that their translations are the most bias translations written. You cant really trust them. I did seva or service at the BBT in Los Angeles for three years...and I was told by very promenant devotees, the people who run it; that nearly all of the books were re-written. Please beware. You first have to study what the original four Vedas, the main Upanishads, the laws of Manu, other Scriptures, the tenets of the Sri Sampradayam- the first Vaishnava Sampradayam, the testimonies of Sadhus before the creation of the other brake-off sampradayams in the 12th to 16th centuries and the vedically based Hindu traditions to know that Narayana/Vishnu is the first. And, then you go to the Mahabharata or the Bhagavad-gita or the Bhagavata purana, then you understand that Sri Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu. It is all according to the prior original scriptures, sadhus and the vedically Hindu tradition says...and, they all say that Narayana, with four arms in Vaikunta is the Original form. And, that Sri Krishna is a vibhava/avatara form of Vishnu/Narayana. This is an absolute Gaudiya veiw point. The Bhagata purana ALSO mentions Narayana. Many Gurus, vedically trainned pandit(scholar), vedically trainned Swamis-both Vaishnava or Shavite (those outside of ISKON/Gaudiya)...and they all will tell you, according to the original sastra, before the brake offs of the 12th to 16th centuries, that Narayana/Vishnu is the first and that Sri Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu. This Whole issue is about what was being said in the prior, original text before the Mahabharata/Bhagavad-gita and that the quotes made about Sri Krishna being Supreme are totally out of context to what is Really being said. And, I worship Vishnu/Narayana, who is the First and Original... According to the Vedic scriptures, the Vedic/Vaishnava Religion and the Original Acharyas before the brake-offs of the 12th to 16th century. This "You worship Krishna in your worship of Vishnu." is not Vedically, Shastrically or Acharya backed sentiment. Shastra, Sadhu and Dharma says that Narayana is The Original God. Not His vibhava/avatara form Sri Krishna.Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 11:22, 03 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)


 * This is neither a Gaudiya speculation, nor is it a widely accepted understanding in Vaishnavism or Hinduism. The Gaudiya and Nimbarka sampradayas both understand the verses in the Bhagavata Purana to describe that Krishna is the ultimate source of all avatars. Other sampradayas, such as Sri Vaishnavas understand the same verses in a different way, and worship Vishnu as the supreme God, of which Krishna is an avatar. Either way, both sets of sampradayas are ultimately worshipping the same Person, so it's not really an argument worth getting too worked up over, at least in my humble opinion. I understand your point of view. Hare Krishna, ys Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes,it still is Speculation...it is only accepted your sampradayam and the other brake-off groups of the 1200's-1600's. This is NOT accepted through out all of Hinduism or vaishnavism. I dont know where you got that information. Even Shaivites and others know, through Sastra and Sadhu and tradition know that Vishnu/Narayana is the original form, not Krishna avatara. According to many verses in the original four Vedas, many verses in the main Upanishads, Chapter one-verse 10 of the Laws of Manu, many ancient stotras, many ancient suktams, many ancient mantras,many verses from the Alwars, Yamunacharya, Ramanujacharya (who you IKSON/Gaudiya put in your disciplic line...and, dont even follow His principles or what He said about Vishnu being first and alot of other things) Vedanta desika...They all say, before the schisms of the 12th-to 16th centuries, that Narayana/Vishnu is the First and Krishna is just a vibhava/avatara form of Narayana. If you truely study and follow what the older text, sadhus, and the well established,vedically back, Original Hindu tradition and what it says about Narayana, and then you study the Bhagavad-gita. You already understand that Krishna is an avatara of Vishnu. Krishna is Vishnu incarnate. First, lets just use the information on Wikipedia...The Sri Sampradayam is first...historical fact. You guys broke off from Madhavacharya line (which He broke off from the Sri Sampr.). You stated above that We "understand the same verses in a different way"...We have the Original Understanding, before the brake-offs occured in the 12th through 16th centuries. Even in a court of law, this position would be understood to be the truth. This is the Sampradaic relativism that has sprang up with in the last 750 years. Even when studying the Western Religions, it is understood that the Jewish religion was the first and that is has the original understandings,traditions and etc. Even when studying the old test., you have to understand, from the original jewish understanding of what is being really said. The same thing with Our issue, You study the older original texts, what acharyas said before the brake-offs and what the scripturally back tradition informs us....and it all says that Narayana in Vaikunta, with four arms is the first. Many trained, schooled Sri Sampradayam Swamis and Pandit; and Shaivite Swamis and Pandits...will tell you, from a Vaishnava stance, Narayana-Vishnu is first and that Krishna is an avatara. The qoutes that you use are actually mis-understandings not taken in accordance with the Original scriptures, Original Acharyas and Scripturally based Hindu traditions. And typical for the schism years between the 12th and 16th centuries. At this time period, people were saying...Krishnas First! and other people were saying...Rama is First! And, they were all trying to prove that their particular incarnation was supreme. Alot of people were trying to form there own sampradayams, coming up with their own interpetations and their own holy books to justify their own ishta-deva as Supreme. In context with this issue; What does the Original Sastra, Sadhu and tradition say. And, then go to what is said about Krishna in the bhagavad-gita and the Bhagavata purana. And, I know...that ISKON/Gaudiya matha does not really accept the Original four Vedas, the main Upanishads, the laws of Manu or any of the other Scriptures. And, the argument that the Vedas are karma kanda or the Upanishads ( with the exception of the Isha-Upanishad) is mayavadaya or the laws of Manu are for Smarta brahmanas...is a very, very incorrect stance that ISKON/Gaudiya has ( I have personally heard many high level ISKON devotees say this). All of these Original texts say....Narayana is first. I beleive that the idea of Krishna and Rama is first came from the fact that alot of people werent able to study the original Vedic and Upanishadic scriptures. And, the only thing that was available for non-brahmins to read was the Ramayana and the Mahabarata/Bhagavad-gita and all the Puranas. When in these later texts, according to a scholarly stance...when they mention the Names of Sri Krishna or Sri Rama, They are the names of Vishnu. Krishna is a name of Narayana, Krishna is a form of Narayana, Krishna is Narayana.Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 10:49, 03 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)


 * Let's put aside for a moment the names human beings have given to identify themselves with a particular group (ie Gaudiya Vaishnavas). And let's examine the Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavata Purana solely as a Hindu person would. After reading these texts, wouldn't most Hindu's come to the same conclusion as the people who call themselves Gaudiya Vaishnavas has come to? The verses from these two texts that would support the Gaudiya viewpoint are innumerable. It's like your asking a Gaudiya to look for verses to support his belief in these texts, when the entire texts are written on the basis of this belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.99.134 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A question...Are you reading non-ISKON translations? Or are you reading only ISKON Translations. Any one will tell you that their translations are the most bias translations written. You cant really trust them. I did seva or service at the BBT in Los Angeles for three years...and I was told by very promenant devotees, the people who run it; that nearly all of the books were re-written. Please beware. Again, like I stated in above. The Gaudiyas have taken out of context certain quotes from these books to justify the notion of their ista-deva being the Supreme. You have to study the prior, previous, original scriptures or Shastra, and what the original acharyas before the Gaudiya group and what the Vedically backed Hindu Traditions ALL say...and they say that Narayana/Vishnu is the First and that Krishna is a vibhava form of Him. Even Vedically trainned, school trainned Shavite pandits, swamis, brahmanas etc. will tell you, in context with Vaishnavism, Narayana/Vishnu is the first and that Sri Krishna is an avatara..Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 11:37, 03 March 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)

Dear Zeuspitar, followers of both Nimbarka and Chaitanya view Krishna and the Supreme source of all avatars. ISKCON follow this view because they are within the Gaudiya tradition of following Chaitanya. It is not ISKCON specific, nor is it Gaudiya specific. See any authoritative book written on the teachings of Nimbarkacharya. I've pulled some quotes from the web just quickly to illustrate this: "Nimbarka identifies the Supreme Brahman with Krishna." and "In Nimbarka, Krishna and Radha (Kirshna’s consort) take the places of Narayana and Lakshmi. Radha is not simply the chief of the Gopis, but is the eternal Consort of Lord Krishna." - both from this link

This belief, of both the above Vaishnava schools is supported by their understanding of the statement in verse 1.3.28 of the Bhagavata Purana wherein, following a list of all of Vishnu's main avatars, the text then states at the end "ete camsa-kalah pumsah, krishnas tu bhagavan svayam" which these schools take to indicate that of all these aforementioned avatars, Krishna (krishnas) but (tu) is the Supreme (Bhagavan) Person (svayam). It is a translation accepted within both these Vaishnava schools. Thus not all Hindu traditions say that Krishna is a avatar of Vishnu. Sri Vaishnavism translations of this verse are different. Okay, not a problem. The aim of Wikipedia is not to argue out, or comment on which is best, but simply to report all notable points of view which are of relevance in the article.

Similarly when Krishna states in the Bhagavad-Gita "aham sarvasya prabhavo, mattah sarvam pravartate... " (from BG 10.8), Nimbarka and Chaitanya's followers see this as refering to Krishna as Krishna. "I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts." From this perspective Krishna when He says He is the Supreme, He means Himself, as Krishna. I know that in the Sri Sampradaya, and amongst other followers of Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya it is most commonly viewed that when Krishna is saying this He is meaning that He as Vishnu is the source, not as Krishna specifically. Okay, that is a valid point of view. What we have is a difference of opinion between Vaishnava schools, is it not? And are differences of opinion not common within Hinduism? A follower of Advaita Vedanta would read that same verse as something else entirely which none of the Vaishnava sampradayas would agree with. It is a matter of debate. But within the article, we need not debate. We can include all relevant viewpoints. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all,again...it goes back to what the vedas, upanishads, alwars and Ramanujacharaya said...period. What was the standard BEFORE the people that you are qouted like "Nimbarka" beleived in. Still, the standard before the schisms of the 12th to 16th centuries, according to the Vedas, the Upanishads, and sattvic puranas and other scriptures and The ORIGINAL acharyas of Vaishnavism say...Lakshmi and Narayana...period. In the second paragraph that you wrote that "Thus not all Hindu traditions say that Krishna is a avatar of Vishnu." first off, it is a well establish fact in Hinduism that the two "sampradayams" that you mentioned are..."brake off" groups, that re-translated and created their own ideas of what the scriptures are saying. These groups are just minor groups within the greater hindu religious whole. Shavites, Shaktis and others will tell you; because they FOLLOW the original vedic scriptures, that in the context of Vaishnavism, according to the vedas, that Lakshmi Narayana is first. Because many quotes from ALL four vedas, many quoutes from the upanishads, and many quotes from other scriptures and what Vaishnava sadhus have said...Before the "brake off" groups. I dont know what "Hindus" you are talking about...the conceptions and ideas of the "brake off" groups that you mention are Not in accordance with the general vedically backed Hindu religious community. You said; "From this perspective Krishna when He says He is the Supreme, He means Himself, as Krishna." AGAIN, what did the other scriptures BEFORE the Mahabharata/Bhagavad-gita say...Vishnu incarnated AS Krishna. When Krishna was born....He had four arms and all the trapings of...Vishnu. In the Bhagavad-gita Krishna show His Universal form and if I am not mistaken, he also showed His four arm form. Both, I might add, are forms of...Vishnu. You said; "Sri Vaishnavism translations of this verse are different."....we know the correct way because of what shastra and sadhus have said,...again, before the advent of the brake off groups coming up with thier own interpretations for their particular ista-deva. From time in memorial to up to the time of Ramanujacharya was the shastrically correct understandings of the verses that you quoted. After Ramanujacharyas passing...then every one wanted to translate according to what they feel...and, not what is in shastra. And, just to let you know, I agree with what you said about..."But within the article, we need not debate. We can include all relevant viewpoints." Namaskar zeuspitar) Govinda Ramanuja dasa (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just respect the fact that we both disagree unresolvably, and that clearly both are engaged in devotional service, and simply put 'Visnu/Krishna', like there is in so many other articles? Perhaps if there is a seperate article for this argument, or even just a esction on the page, it will allow readers an unbiased and two-sided view of things. Harrifer (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This page does the Bhagavata Purana a tremendous injustice
The Bhagavata Purana, one of the most central and authoratative of all Hindu texts, is not properly represented on this Wikipedia page.

All existing sections could be expanded greatly, while new sections can be added that would better represent the very significant nature of this Hindu text.

Furthermore, the fact that the Uddhava Gita doesn't even have its own page is saddening.

Let's all make a collective effort to revitalize and greatly improve this page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.99.134 (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, this page in it's current state leaves a lot of room for improvement. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A Shame and downfall
On top of that is the totally repressive treatment of the other version of the book on the internet (http://theorderoftime.org/personal/BhagavataWiki/ ) evidence that this wiki page is totally manipulated by the Hare Krishna sect. A rightout shame! It is their downfall. Previous discussions and links about this have been deleted. Nothing that is outside the control of ISKCON is admitted so it seems. It is their institutional soulless profit motive of selling the books that rules the pages here. This is not science, this is sectarian politics and commerce. Wikipedia as such is of the same downfall. Not to be of this downfall I have, to begin with, restored the link. I would like to revise this page totally after the dutch wikipedia page about this book, but will not do so if these repressive sectarian policies are kept up here, as they were in the past. (213.84.172.15 (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I might disagree with this or that, but you should still make sure it's there.89.242.148.62 (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification tag
Hi, I added a tag to the part about the atomic time of the universe. I do not have the book but isn't it that all things have a time of existence within each other and at the end of an existence period the material is reborn with the universe itself having (speculatively) only one cycle, which is the longest? ~ R . T . G  05:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Einstein copied his Theory of Relativity from the Srimad Bhagavatam?
Could someone please document the influence of the Srimad Bhagavatam (and also the Bhagavad Gita) on the work of Albert Einstein. A good place to start might be the literature of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Thanks. 203.108.140.130 (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking this here. I'd think a better place to start would be biographies of Einstein. For him to have been inspired by anything, you'd need evidence that he'd read it for a start. Just saying that his ideas and some other ideas have something in common doesn't show influence or inspiration. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Einstein spoke fondly of the Bhagavad Gita (eg. http://www.mcremo.com/einstein.html) so presumably he read the Bhagavatam as well. In any case it is widely documented that the teachings of the Bhagavatam coincide with the theories of Einstein. 203.108.140.130 (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is hardly a WP:RS. Where/when did Einstein make that statement? It seems rather out of character for him (he was very minimalist in his beliefs and didn't tend to subscribe to the dogma of any organised religion), and I've seen at least one website that questions its veracity. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On further examination, it seems to be widely quoted in Hindu circles, but never cited to its original source. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

regarding the "spoke fondly" part, yes. Regarding the "teachings of the Bhagavatam coincide with the theories of Einstein" part, definitely not. The BP is a Purana. Einstein's theories are theoretical physics. Different genre. Whatever Prabhupada says about this would belong in a "in Hindu revivalism" section and would be subject to scrutiny under WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK source material is here 203.108.140.130 (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "references" presented,
 * absoluteastronomy.com is a Wikipedia mirror. Absolutely worthless as a reference.
 * the krishnascience.com page is apparently an excerpt from a book by one T.D. Singh. This book would need to be cited directly, also subject to scrutiny under WP:DUE.
 * trsiyengar.com is a personal website. Completely worthless as a referece
 * the asiantribune.com link is a 2006 article which cites one T.S.Shankara with the notion that "some basic concepts of modern-day physics are found in the Sastras". Well, some "basic concepts of modern physics" include "space" and "time". It is hardly the case that if an ancient text includes a word for "time" that this suggests its authors were capable of advanced physics, but if some author decides to claim as much, that is just an opinion to be considered relative to WP:FRINGE, i.e. can it be shown to have any sort of notability.

Regarding your "citation" of "here", please see this (pages 1ff.)

We do incidentially have an article where such stuff is pertinent, at Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts. This article is so far missing a "Hinduism" section, and if we can find actual citations of Prabhupada, T.S.Shankara or T.D.Singh, these could certainly be used for the composition of such a section. Wikipedia already has more material of this kind, e.g. at Vaimanika Shastra. It would be interesting to compile an encyclopedic article on this. Discussion on details is perhaps best continued at Talk:Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts. --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I just remembered that I keep a userified draft on the topic, here. I can begin a Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts section based on that. --dab (𒁳) 14:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Bhaktivedanta, his organization (ISKCON), and followers (which include Cremo, aka "Drutakarma dasa") are not reliable sources for anything but the ISKCON teachings. They are not even representative of Hinduism, except as a rather extreme minority view, as seen at Hindu views on evolution. Here's a reliable source which legitimately connects an interesting story in the Bhagavata Purana with time dilation and Einstein's theories (without the grandiose claims that they are the basis for Einstein's theories). It's very interesting, and even though it's an old personal favorite story, I still don't think that it's notable enough for this article. Priyanath talk 15:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Prabhupada is essentially representing Gaudiya Vaishnavism which does, of course, represent a minority within Hinduism, but not necessarily an unnotable one.

The claims and ideas discussed above are probably summed up in this quote,
 * any traditional Hindu idea or practice, however obscure and irrational it might have been through its history, gets the honorific of "science" if it bears any resemblance at all, however remote, to an idea that is valued (even for the wrong reasons) in the West. (Nanda, Meera. 2003. Prophets Facing Backward: Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India, Rutgers University Press.  ISBN 0813533589)

The "Einstein ripped off Bhagavata Purana" thing is just a single example of this wider phenomenon. --dab (𒁳) 15:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think Prabhupada is seen as representative of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, again except as a minority one. Priyanath talk 15:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Priyanath and Dbachmann. There is no reliable source for this absurd "Einstein ripped off Bhagavata Purana" claim, nor for most of the usual grandiose claims about seeds of "modern science" being in various ancient texts. Also, Prabhupada and his ISKCON organisation may make a lot of noise, especially in the West, but they are at best a minority (even within Gaudiya Vaishnavism), albeit notable for their evangelistic and cultish aspects etc. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the Einstein quote on Cremo's website is a forgery. I did find a suggestion that someone named Hansdutta made it up. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And now how do we get rid of the quote here Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete it as a hoax? Or does it have to go through AfD? What are the rules on deleting a Portal sub/sub page? Priyanath talk 17:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. If AfD, I would be happy to nominate itPriyanath talk 17:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

--dab (𒁳) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * first of all, the Bhagavad Gita is completely distinct from the Bhagavata Purana. If this is about this supposed Einstein quote, this isn't even the right talkpage for it.
 * secondly, I can imagine that Einstein could have said this, in his older, more philosophical days. This is just a matter of cn. But Einstein published the theory of special relativity when he was 26, and on general relativity when he was 36. I find it highly doubtful that he should have been at all acquaninted with the Gita at this early time, especially since it had only become en vogue in Europe due to Gandhi, decades later. That Einstein's knowledge of the Gita could even have the remotest connection of general inspiration towards considering relativity, before 1905, or at least before 1915, would again be a question of cn.


 * It was being discussed here because the IP trying to add Einstein to this article brought up that Gita quote to support their theory. Since the quote was apparently a complete fabrication by ISKCON (I think Dougweller is right on that), and that entire quote page consists only of that quote, it should be deleted - just like other hoax pages are deleted. Priyanath talk 19:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That page has been nominated for deletion here: Miscellany_for_deletion. Priyanath talk 19:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. On the advice of an admin at MfD, I just changed the quote to one that is reliably sourced, so hopefully the MfD will be closed since there is no need. Priyanath talk 19:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in the history of that quote. It appears its fabrication was attributed to Hansadutta Das. But is this verifiable? --dab (𒁳) 08:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * it seems we could in principle just ask . --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the same thread has the suggestion the quote may originate with "Thoreau or Emerson". Maybe it wasn't so much fabricated as misattributed. --dab (𒁳) 08:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also find the suggestion floating around that the association of Einstein with the Gita is a confusion with Oppenheimer, who was indeed fond of the Gita, and who famously quoted from it at Los Alamos. I suppose this is also more in keeping with the core message of "total war" found in the Gita than Einstein's supposed mystical musings. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A source for the quote, or its fabrication, both seem unverifiable. A Google book and scholar search turn up only three or four sources (including searches for partials of the quote)—a yoga magazine, an iUniverse self-published leadership book, etc. that are probably repeating the mistake. I couldn't find the quote attributed to anyone else, either. On the other hand, for example, Einstein's quote about Gandhi ("Generations to come, it may be, will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth") turns up in hundreds of book sources, including his own book. Einstein's words were covered pretty well by an interested media during his lifetime. I lean toward believing that thread about Hansadutta Das, or ISKCON, coming up with it. Priyanath talk 16:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the problem with these popular misattributions of quotes is that the precise phrasing is malleable. I.e. you cannot search for the exact quote, since the original one very likely was phrased slightly differently. In any case, it is clear that the BBT version is fabricated. Whether by Hansadutta or somebody else we don't know. But it is still possible that it is a modification of an earlier quote.
 * I had a similar experience with a quote often attributed to Benjamin Franklin, in German "translation". It has proven impossible to pinpoint the supposed English original. I could trace the internet history of this to a 2003 webpage. I even took the trouble to email the owner of that page, and he did reply, but he could not say more than that his sources were the "usual collections" of aphorisms.
 * I still don't know whether either Franklin or Morus said anything of the kind. This is because people cannot bring themselves to provide their bloody references. Copy-paste and some name-dropping (preferably "Einstein" or somebody of similar fame) is enough for them,and if the quote says something that resonates with them they get the fuzzy feeling of walking with mental giants. This is a refletion of the uncomfortable truth that the vast majority of humans are herd animals, who couldn't think for themselves to save their lives, but who simply love to be fed Steppenwolf-style narratives that make them collectively feel very individual, unconventional and adventurous. --dab (𒁳) 13:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've continued to try and search for any variation/modification on the quote (using only a couple words, in various combinations) with no success, since I was thinking the same way. I think also that when someone reasonably could have said something, and people want it to be true, they'll repeat it without any fact-checking. Priyanath talk 19:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)