Talk:Jagadguru

Untitled
The following sentence in the article: "According to the Indian scriptures, the Jagadguru is a title given so that people can abide by the teachings of a Guru without any fear and in full confidence" is utterly interesting. It would be good to give examples of sacred Indian scriptures which develop on this explanation of the word Jagadguru. Also, sorry if the following question might appear polemic but it is not intended to be defamatory: I see that there are many individuals today who pretend to be the present Jagadguru. As far as I know, there can be only one Jagadguru at a given time. So, how to decide who is the real Jagadguru today ? I think it is likely that the real Jagadguru today is not one among those who publicly and outwardly pretend to be. TwoHorned 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Historically the title has been bestowed on Sanskrit commentators on the Prathanatrayi - Brahma Sutra, Gita and Upnanishads. In recent times, to my information, only Swami Ramabhadracharya has written Sanskrit commentaries on all of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.10.225 (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

POV tag
This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: '''Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.''' Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Students of Indian religious culture should understand that disciples naturally want to claim that their particular guru is the Jagad Guru, the teacher of the whole world, and often pretend that no other person makes or can make the same claim. This is precisely what User 117.196.235.48 / 117.252.67.64 has been continually doing. S/he has reverted contributions that were added to make the article more neutral. Like a good disciple, s/he insists on inserting honorifics (Sri, Ji, Maharaj) into the article. S/he insists on promoting his/her guru Kripalu not only as “the fifth jagadguru,” comparable to the historical advaitacarya Sankara, visistadvaitacarya Ramanuja, dvaitadvaitacarya Nimbarka, and dvaitacarya Madhva, but also no less than the “Supreme Jagadguru.” For as long as this is allowed, this article will always be a promotional write-up for Kripalu, not an encyclopedia article.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Bias under Madhvacharya Section.
This particular sentence under the section about Jadaguru Madhavacharya seems to be rather biased

"Wherever he went, he debated the prominent scholars of the impersonal school, smashing their interpretations of Vedanta with his brilliant advocacy of dualistic theism.[9]"

Would anyone mind me removing it from the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.162.26 (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Jagadguru Kripaluji Maharaj be added in list of notable jagadgurus.
Kripaluji Maharaj has been declared 5th original jagadguru by Kashi Vidvat parishad. His name must be on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.24.245 (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if your followers declare you as God or the Supreme God, it does not mean that you are God. There are a billion Hindus worldwide. They have not declared Kripalu as the Supreme Jagadguru. That is only the belief of his small group of followers campaigning for his recognition. There are countless other scholars and savants who were and are fully capable of consolidating and expounding the philosophies of the Sanatana Dharma. Placing the controversial Kripalu above others is nothing but ego, vanity, and boasting.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * YES 2400:1A00:B011:2CD5:40B5:DDBA:8781:686D (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What knowledge do you possess to comment on Hindu seers and their traditions ? Kashi Vidvat Parishad is authoritative Hindu body of learned saints and Hindus worldwide accept them as official body entitled to bestow the title to a deserving Hindu saint. They are extremely judicious in the process and only offer this title once in a century or so. Please refrain from getting involved in topics not relevant to you. Thank you. J J Parikh 22:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parikhjigish (talk • contribs)

Arbitrary application of the title
Every disciple wants to call his teacher or master as "Jagadguru," the Master of the Universe -- and many disciples express anger when this application is challenged. There are many examples, including the controversial Kripalu (accused by some of sexual improprieties), the Ananda Marga founder Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, and the American Vaisnava pseudo-monk Chris Butler. Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * What knowledge do you possess to comment on Hindu seers and their traditions ? Kashi Vidvat Parishad is authoritative Hindu body of learned saints and Hindus worldwide accept them as official body entitled to bestow the title to a deserving Hindu saint. They are extremely judicious in the process and only offer this title once in a century or so. Please refrain from getting involved in topics not relevant to you. Thank you. J J Parikh 22:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parikhjigish (talk • contribs)