Talk:Krishna/Archive 5

Reference 29, Knott - Birth of Krisnha
It is mentioned that Krisnna was conceived without any sexual union. Now, where is it mentioned? Is it explicit? --Karimpuli (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a qualification to that statement; since it is not in a standard text, I would think it worth removing to a 'particular beliefs about Krishna' section. Imc (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are sure it is not cited unambigously in a standard test, remove it at once. Thank you.--Karimpuli (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is and there are a number of books written linking it to other similar traditions of the middle east. Its a common belief, there is no need to remove it. It should be expanded if anything. Wikidās ॐ 13:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It is there! Where? The Mahabharatha, Bhagavatha, or the Harivamsa? Well, it is anything but a common belief, except perhaps the Harekrishna's, who gleefully sketch all Gopas with blond hair and light eyes; sans the blue Krishna, ofcourse.--Karimpuli (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This belief is not specific to one specific tradition, and is based on interpretation of Bhagavata:  , , ,,  , I hardly can hide my despise of your ignorance in the semi-illiterate note above, as the sources speak directly as to Lord entering the mind of Vasudeva (mana ānakadundubheḥ) and then as to extraordinary birth by the transfer (samāhitam) from the mind of Vasudeva to the nivāsa-bhūtā of Devaki, talking about sources:
 * bhagavān api viśvātmā
 * bhaktānām abhayaṅkaraḥ
 * āviveśāṁśa-bhāgena
 * mana ānakadundubheḥ
 * tato jagan-maṅgalam acyutāṁśaṁ
 * samāhitaṁ śūra-sutena devī
 * dadhāra sarvātmakam ātma-bhūtaṁ
 * kāṣṭhā yathānanda-karaṁ manastaḥ
 * sā devakī sarva-jagan-nivāsa-
 * nivāsa-bhūtā nitarāṁ na reje
 * bhojendra-gehe 'gni-śikheva ruddhā
 * sarasvatī jñāna-khale yathā satī

Wikidās ॐ 08:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikidas, I don't believe that your reference (only one repeated several times at a quick look) show more than that some Christians have seen a parallel with the birth of Christ. There is no justification for reading a virgin birth into the original texts (of which there are only two or three, quoted above). Since Krishna is an avatara of Vishnu in these, yes there has to be an explanation for the connection between the deity and the birth, but how does this make a woman who has given birth before a virgin? I think this idea properly belongs in the 'other beliefs' section.


 * I'll also refer back to my earlier post on 'overuse of references'. Just because there is a reference for something, it does not make it relevant in an article this size.


 * Imc (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The references only needed to items that are disputed or can be questioned as it is the case. Krsna appeared in front of Vasudeva in his four armed form of Vishnu, not as an incarnation but as a full descent. I do not "support" the view that Devaki was a Virgin, I just cite it as a belief. The fact is that according to Vaishnava beliefs, Krishna is not taking a material form, thus Devaki is a divine spiritual figure, not just "a virgin" of some christian traditions, fact that they want to see it as a very popular belief. However sources give Krishna a divine birth and certainly not regular one. Wikidās ॐ 12:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, references are needed for points that are disputed (as is the case here) and those citations themselves should be incontestable. I hardly believe that is the case here. Devaki is described as wife to Vishnu! As regards my "semi-illiteracy", well I can not bring myself to "despise" a deaf man who believes everyone around him is dumb.--Karimpuli (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added more sources to the article, incidentally in the following verse Devaki IS described looking or appearing like Sarasvati. Its not a question of your belief, its what the source state. Wikidās ॐ 16:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have looked through the ISKCON translation of the Bhagavatam; this translation has the usual ISKCON idiosyncracies, but it is quite clear that it does not say that there was no sexual union, in fact it says that Krishna was born to Devaki and Vasudeva. Imc (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry where does this sectarian source provides for the assumption? Are you saying this source states that 'no sexual union' is not the belief of the authors team? Wikidās ॐ 08:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, let me spell this out; the Bhaktivedanta Srimad Bhagavatam at which includes a translation of a primary text, the Bhagavata Purana says -


 * Vasudeva also begot eight highly qualified sons through the womb of Devakī. . These included .... Kṛṣṇa.


 * It thus contradicts the statement currently in the article


 * According to Bhagavata Purana Krishna, ... was born without a sexual union, by "mental transmission" from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki.


 * The references given for this statement are two books by Knott and Bryant, which are not online as far as I can see. Considering the level of contradiction, you need to quote the actual text to justify the statement that the Bhagavatam can be interpreted as they suggest. Even then, it would only be an interpretation, not a translation.


 * Your previous references, quoted in this talk page, e.g.  do not even describe beliefs; they are just works that include phrases such as 'the Virgin Devaki', sometimes with a reference to a similar source, but without any reference to a primary source.  The reason for this language can be seen in their desire to show a similarity between the stories of Krishna and Jesus, and by extending the concept of the virginity of Mary to Devaki, to try to make the similarity seem stronger. They do not support the statements in the Wikipedia article.   Imc (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not know why you are going thought interpretation of the sectarian source by A.C. Bhaktivedanta and is going trough you mind, since an academic translation is linked to Google books from the reference, but it you want just read what A.C. Bhaktivedanta said specifically on this point here is a quote from the same source - it is explicit. "tato jagan-mańgalam acyutāḿśaḿ samāhitaḿ śūra-sutena devī dadhāra sarvātmakam ātma-bhūtaḿ kāṣṭhā yathānanda-karaḿ manastaḥ

TRANSLATION

Thereafter, accompanied by plenary expansions, the fully opulent Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-auspicious for the entire universe, was transferred from the mind of Vasudeva to the mind of Devakī. Devakī, having thus been initiated by Vasudeva, became beautiful by carrying Lord Kṛṣṇa, the original consciousness for everyone, the cause of all causes, within the core of her heart, just as the east becomes beautiful by carrying the rising moon.

PURPORT

As indicated here by the word manastaḥ, the Supreme Personality of Godhead was transferred from the core of Vasudeva's mind or heart to the core of the heart of Devakī. We should note carefully that the Lord was transferred to Devakī not by the ordinary way for a human being, but by dīkṣā, initiation."

- Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.2.18 And Bryant source is clearly available online (with the link provided) plus more at Amazon.com with the explanation of the footnote which is very clear. Knott's particular page is not available online now. There is nothing to discuss about on this, a belief and clearly evidenced statement supported by both sectarian and academic translation of the primary source. Move on Imc, its a belief. Wikidās ॐ 20:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence
"Devotees of Krishna maintain that according to Bhagavad Gita, Krishna is completely spirit and has no material body, thus his birth is only 'an appearance' in accordance with their interpretation of the Gita 4.6 and 7.24."


 * The sentence is not clear and also confusing to a non-Hindu. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What is confusing here for non-Hindus ? If non-Hindus cannot understand Sanskrit properly, it is their fault. The very word (re)incarnation (to come in flesh) is a misnomer for the word avatara. The understaning of birth itself in Hinduism assumes pre-existing jIvAtmas or souls of living creatures taking upa physical body, while Ishvara's of God's avataras do NOT ever take up physical bodies. A particular Form of God simply becomes visible and this is called as "birth" only for namesake.

Concept of Ishvara alias God in Bhagavad Gita or even Vedas (Isavasya Upanishad) is that God is an omnipresent imperishable or undecaying eternal spirit. FORMS of God like Krishna etc. are also omnipresent imperishable or undecaying eternal spirit, i.e. God's Form is identically God Himself.

Hinduism has a concept of jivAtma or spirit, subject to both subtle body (linga deha) or psychic body and gross body (sthula sharira). The jivAtma is enveloped by the other two bodies. This is the case for human beings. The real identity of all created living beings is that they are jIvAtma.

In the case of Ishvara alias viSNu or any of His avataras, the outer envelopes of subtle and gross bodies are eternally absent, even in His avataras. That is why He is not subject to Karmas like jivAtmas who possess body and are subject to birth and death, while Ishvara is never subject to such limitations as jIvAtma.

Now coming to the Bhagavad Gita verses. Please read the verses with some understanding and change the article appropriately.

ajo api sann avyayatma bhutanam isvaro 'pi san prakrtim svaam adhishthaya sambhavamy atma-maayaya (Gita 4-6)

ajah--unborn; api--though; san--being so; avyaya--imperishable; atma--Self or Spirit; bhutanam--all living beings( those who are born); isvarah--the Supreme Lord or controller; api--although; san--being so; prakrtim svaam--My own essential nature(of being without material/subtle body); adhishthaya--being so situated or established; sambhavami--I manifest Myself; atma-maayaya--Power or Wisdom or Consciousness of HimSelf.

Although I am Unborn, of imperishable Spirit (as in body, soul and spirit i.e. Krishna says HE has no material/subtle body), though I am Lord of all living beings, established in MY OWN ESSENTIAL NATURE(Purna=complete and perfect Spiritual nature without material/subtle body), I manifest Myself through MY OWN Power.

Note: 1. This verse clearly points to Krishna is Complete and Perfect Brahma or Purna Atma without any material body or subtle body(soul).

2. The use of words "Prakrtim Svaam" is significant in this verse.

a. "Sva" as in svabhaava refers to one's own essential nature or attribute(honesty etc.) as opposed to something one possesses, like a house, car etc.

b. Krishna clearly uses "mayaa adhyakshena prakrtih" in verse 9:10 when HE refers to Material Universe under HIS control. Here the word mayaa is used in the possessive sense like that of a house, car etc. that is under one's control.

Thus it is very clear that Krishna has no material body(human body) or subtle body(soul consisting of mind, emotions etc.)

avyaktam vyaktim apannam manyante mam abuddhayah param bhavam ajananto mamavyayam anuttamam(Bhagavad Gita 7:24)

avyaktam--unmanifest, transcendental to matter, that which lacks body and Karmic effects; vyaktim--Manifest or refers to human beings or living beings with body; pannam--has become; manyante--think; mam--of Me; abuddhayah--Unintelligent persons; param--supreme; bhavam--state of being; ajanantah--without knowing; mama--My; avyayam--imperishable; anuttamam--Unsurpassable.

The word vyaktim=created living being that possesses subtle and gross bodies as explained above and not just visible manifestation.

Unintelligent people think of me, the unmanifest(transcendental to all matter), as having become created living being, without knowing My imperishable and unsurpassable state of being.

Shri Krushna already is visible to human beings. Hence the abuddhayah=Unintelligent persons who sees this visible form think that the visible Shri Krushna has become human being, with a material body without knowing that HIS form or RUPA is imperishable and unsurpassable(unlimited). This is what the verse says.

Read the next verse as well. Note the use of the word "ajam" here which means "unborn". Bhagavad Gita is very clear that Shri Krishna does not possess physical body. One who possesses physical body cannot be called as "ajam" or "unborn". Birth itself means pre-existing soul assuming a physical body.

nāhaḿ prakāśaḥ sarvasya yoga-māyā-samāvṛtaḥ mūḍho 'yaḿ nābhijānāti loko mām ajam avyayam (Bhagavad Gita 7:25)

na — nor; aham — I; prakāśaḥ — manifest; sarvasya — to everyone; yoga-māyā — by my potency/power; samāvṛtaḥ — concealed/enveloped; mūḍhaḥ — foolish; ayam — these; na abhijānāti — do not know; lokaḥ — persons; mām — Me; ajam — unborn; avyayam — imperishable/undecaying.

Being enveloped by my power, I am not manifest or visible to everyone. Hence the foolish or ignorant do not know Me who am unborn and imperishable.

I also request the editors of this article to read Isavasya Upanishad verses 8 and 16 especially from the following link.

http://www.dvaita.org/sources/shruti/translation.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.193.237 (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If non-Hindus cannot understand Sanskrit properly, it is their fault.
 * This is English encyclopedia, thus the medium should be clear English not Hindi or Sanskrit or Hebrew. However the sentence above is quite clear and if it is 'confusing' then it should be expanded, so there is no reason to remove it. Wikidās ॐ 08:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The word death was replaced by disappearance. A discussion on this talk on this topic reaching a consensus against use of disappearance, is available. The very ref provided by anon about the Mahabharata mentions "The hunter, mistaking Keshava, who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey.", thus just saying "While Vyasa's Mahābhārata says Krishna ascended to heaven assuming His divine form" is the half-truth.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that Vyasa's Mahābhārata talks about hunter piercing the leg, does it talk about death of Krishna or even anything aabout body of Krishna ? The answer is NO. The article was corrected because Vyasa's Mahābhārata DOES NOT mention anything about death of Shri Krishna or even being mortally wounded at all. So this is false. Does anybody die immediately because they were shot in their heals ? Did you notice the same Vyasa's Mahābhārata says that the hunter saw Shri Krishna in multiarmed Form ?

By the way which Purana mentions about Shri Krishna's death ? Quote me one verse which says "Krishna died" anywhere. When you use the words "According to Puranas" you better come up with the exact reference from Puranas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.193.237 (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way did you understand anything about Bhagavad Gita verses which confirm Shri Krishna being bodiless and completely spirit. The problem with you editors is that you have no knowledge of Sanskrit language and yet think that you know better to be editors on subjects you have no understanding of.

Please make note I want the exact Sanskrit verse which says "Krishna died" or anything like that ?


 * There is no concept in Bhagavad Gita on kṛṣṇa being bodyless. he does not have a material body, but he has a body AND he is also avyakta mūrti, ananta rūpa - I think the problem with anons is that they lack the experience of team work of Wikipedia. There are hundereds of ways one can translate a verse. Selecting the reliable translation is the key. Wikidās ॐ 15:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[native code] } way

Ok...when I says bodiless, I mean without prakrita sharira. I did not say Krishna has NO FORM, which you call as body, which is spiritual in nature. This is my point as well. So do you agree Krishna did NOT die ? What do you mean reliable translation ? People here have no knowledge of Sanskrit. How can they even know which is reliable ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.193.237 (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, since we do not know that you know sanskrit and you do not not know what we know we rely on wp:reliable sources and translations that are accepted or reviewed by academics, not on your understanding of what is sarira and what is mūrti and what is vigraha. In fact kṛṣṇa has a form and has a body, he has senses and the mind and he has feelings, being bhagavan and sat cit ānanda at the same time. Being absolute, there is no difference between his body and his form and his self and his .... anything. Wikidās ॐ 15:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough.

and who are these academics ? Why don't you list what are these reliable sources in this context ? Since you and I agree on the nature of Krishna, why do authors here remove my correction ? Are you one of wiki editors here ? Then the question remains, why the usage of words "Krishna's death" when reference is made to Puranas and itihaasas.

If there is no difference between His body and form, then why say "In fact kṛṣṇa has a form and has a body" ? This is all unnecessary verbose for the topic. Please come back to the topic if you are an editor here.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.193.237 (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not every editor or in fact every reader will recognize that kṛṣṇa has never died, since we have a section on his birth we have it also on his death. if you find academic or otherwise reliable sources that support the view that some believe that he never died - this view should be reflected in the article. however it should be noted that unless one is of a particular religion, one may not accept is as a given fact, therefor such religious fact should always have a source that confirms that such belief exists. Otherwise a statement that kṛṣṇa has never died will be challenged as simply untrue (while because I belong to a religion that would agree with this as fact I can understand you). Therefore go to google scholar and find a reference that clearly states that in mahabhārata there is no mention of kṛṣṇas death because he never died. Otherwise you just give a chance to others to ridicule yourself. It is not a religious text, is a wikipedia. Wikidās ॐ 16:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the editors made a note that "According to Puranas, Krishna's death...." the onus is on the particular editor to show a Sanskrit verse from Puranas that says "Krishna died" or something like that. Until then the use of word death in this context is false. On the other hand, I have shown many verses from Bhagavad Gita which explicitly say Krishna has no body. I have no idea why these verses should be neglected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.193.237 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This section of the article describes the avatara. Krishna was born as a man; he was an incarnation; therefore he died. Otherwise he would not be incarnate, he would be something else. Now if there are works that say that he was fully divine and not incarnated as a man, that account should be placed elsewhere in the article, not in the section that describes the story of the incarnation. As for any non occurrence of the word 'death' in connection with Krishna, that can reasonably be described as an euphemism, and these should not be used in Wikipedia. For comparison, my nearest copy of the Mahabharata (Narasimhan's translation) says of the Pandavas and Draupadi, that each 'fell down', not that they died. Imc (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say anywhere that avatara = reincaration ? Is this not an assumption by people here ? When Mahbharatha does say that Pandavas fell down, it does not sa they assumed any divine form as well, unlike the case of Shri Krishna. When Mahabharatha especially says Shri Krishna assumed a divine form and makes no mention of death, unlike the case of balarama where it is clearly and explicitly said that Balarama discarded his body through yoga, whereas for Krishna no such thing is said, it is clear no death is meant here and that Krishna did not have a material body, especially when Gita verses quoted above show that to be the case.

Also note the following explicit verses in Mahabhartha which says Krishna's birth or Rama's birth is NOT like other being's birth.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05070.htm

"Sanjaya said, 'The auspicious names (of Kesava) have been previously heard by me..............

That conqueror of hosts is called Aja, or unborn', because he hath not taken his birth from any being in the ordinary way.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03099.htm

"Lomasa said, 'Listen, O king, to the history of Rama (the son of Dasaratha) and Rama of Bhrigu's line gifted with intelligence. For the destruction of Ravana, O king, Vishnu, in his own body, took his birth as the son of illustrious Dasaratha.

Note the verse saying "not taken his birth from ANY being" and "Vishnu, in his own body, took his birth as the son of illustrious Dasaratha". These words clearly show that none of viSNu's avatara have material bodies and hence cannot die.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.193.237 (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may be so bold as to present my tidbit: Krishna was indeed, according to texts, a material form, in addition to divinity. His soul was the body that you speak of, as the soul is immortal, as per most of the texts (read through any of them that discuss the soul and you shall find it). All of Vishnu's avatarams are, therefore, reincarnations, because they are the going of his one, very divine soul into human body (the divine soul therefore giving the supernatural powers we see in the texts) to fulfill their purposes. As far as the "not taken his birth from any being", it continues on to say "in the ordinary way," which, translated by the yogis and self-realized saints in India, means He knew of all things a self-realized person should know (meaning, what God should know) from the time he entered the womb as a seed. That is all I wish to say, but should there be anything you wish for me to add, I can ;) BlackPearl14 talkies! 03:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You guys (incl IP) are expressing unsourced beliefs. We need to reflect them with the section, since we are talking about a Hindu deity, points of 'death' of the deity should be reflected in the article. We need sources for that. I have added:
 * According to Puranic sources, Krishna's death marks the end of Dvapara Yuga and the start of Kali Yuga, which is dated to February 17/18, 3102 BCE. Vaiṣṇava teachers such as Ramanujacharya and followers of Caitanya Mahaprabhu held the view that the body of Krishna is completely spiritual and never decays as this appears to be the perspective of the Bhagavata Purana. Krishna never appears to grow old or age at all in the historical depictions of the Puranas despite passing of several decades, but there are grounds for a debate whether this indicates that he has no material body, since battles and other descriptions of the Mahabhārata epic show clear indications that he seems to be a subject to the limitation of nature. Wikidās ॐ 08:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My source? Okay, here: The Bhagawad Gita, a translation by Paramahamsa Yogananda. I did not write it in sourcing form, because I wanted to get your okay first. In addition, and in concurrance with Wikidas, the Puranas do prove that Krishna was in material body (see the battles?). BlackPearl14 [ talkies!•contribs! ]20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So how a sectarian author of a prominent but not mainstream faith in Hinduism, has become the reliable source? Maybe for his sect's beliefs, but otherwise you need academic sources, not primary like Bg. Bg is not about the life of Krishna anyway, its a theological work subject to interpretation and (as the case may be) misinterpretation. Wikidās ॐ 23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * He's not a sectarian author, Wikidas. If you'd read his autobiography, you'd know that it says he is a Hindu. Either way, it's in support of your statement ;) BlackPearl14 [ talkies!•contribs! ]19:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is to say who is sectarian or not sectarian ? Is it not a subjective decision you are making here ? Your argument about battles is very weak. Krishna appears to do many things apparently and one should not take mere statements about battle to decide whether He has body or not. Bhagavat Gita is Krishna's own word.

You were saying the soul is what the body refers to in case of Shri Rama's avataram. Read the statement again.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03099.htm

"Lomasa said, 'Listen, O king, to the history of Rama (the son of Dasaratha) and Rama of Bhrigu's line gifted with intelligence. For the destruction of Ravana, O king, Vishnu, in his own body, took his birth as the son of illustrious Dasaratha.

The verse clearly states that viSNu comes in HIS own body, which implies He does NOT take any other body. Otherwise the statement itself is superfluous as we know well all beings come in their own body (ie. soul) as per your understanding. Your meaning of the verse, actually makes the very statement useless information.

The purpose of Lomasa's statement is to bring out difference between birth of other ordinary beings and avatara of viSNu. Your meaning completely misses the point and is obviously wrong. Besides note the following verse also where Shri Krishna is said to be without deterioration.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05130.htm

Knowest thou not sinless Govinda, of terrible prowess and incapable of deterioration?

If the above statement means only Soul of Krishna being without deterioration, then that is true for all beings. The purpose of above statement is again, like Loamasa's statement on Shri Rama, to bring out differences between viSNu's avatara and birth of other beings.

Besides there are clear statements from Puranas which also say the same thing regarding avataras being without material body.

Garuda Purana

http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/ebene_1/fiindolo/gretil/1_sanskr/3_purana/garup3_u.htm

tadrūpamāhuḥ prākṛtaṃ vai tadajñā hyandhaṃ tamaḥ praviśantyeva sarve // GarP_3,3.2 //

Those who consider that form to be indeed material, such knowers certainly enter pitch darkness.

avatārā mahāviṣṇoḥ sarve pūrṇāḥ prakīrtitāḥ / pūrṇaṃ ca tatparaṃ rūpaṃ pūrṇātpūrṇāḥ samudgatāḥ // GarP_3,3.3 //

All avatars of viSNu are perfect and complete. Perfect is that supreme Form. Perfection begets perfection.

Inspite of all these if you people here keep making false statements on Puranas and itihaasas, based on faulty understanding and faulty logic from scriptures, then there is nothing else to do for me here. Ignorance is bliss for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.63.70 (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

krishna and arjun
krishna and arjun was very true friends for each other. when arjun was in sorrow in battelfield of kurukshetra than krishna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkdixit (talk • contribs) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Usourced and rem

 * This : tradition dates back to the mughal emperor Jalaluddin "Akbar" who ordered that Krishna be painted blue to make a black god more acceptable to muslims who would presumably find a blue-skinned god less offensive to their sensibilities.

This one on painting murtis blue is not in the sources cited and is clearly dubious. Aslo undue. Wikid as&#169; 10:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Krishna-Bhakti Movement consistency
Wikidas, I've lowercased "Bhakti" and "Movement" in the section title "Spread of the Krishna-Bhakti Movement" in accordance with WP:HEAD (sorry for accidentally deleting 'the'). Now that you have revered the edit, I wonder how you justify your capitalization in the title per WP:MOS. You may also want to comb through the article for consistency. For instance, in the lead it is both "Krishna-bhakti Movement" and "Bhakti movement", "Bhakti movement" under Bhakti tradition, "Krishna bhakti movement" under In the West (note the italics and the absence of the hyphen between 'Krishna' and 'bhakti'), and "Bhakti movement" under In the performing arts. Looks pretty inconsistent to me. Wouldn't it be more becoming to have the same style throughout? I would suggest "Krishna-bhakti movement" and "bhakti movement" as more correct stylistically. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, this kind of odd capitalization was one of the GA-review's points of criticism some 1.5 years ago, which still does not seem to be addressed. Cinosaur (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead image for deletion, replacement needed
The lead image is up for deletion at Wikicommons due to lack of source information. We get to find a suitable replacement. We should find suitable that are valid source information and is representative of the popular iconography of Krishna. Here are some options:

-- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Historicity
No coverage I'm surprised to see that this article--rated Good no less--has no discussion of the historicity of Krishna. Surely there is some kind of scholarly investigation into this matter. One of the four external links is even a conjecture at his (historical) birth and death dates. Can anyone incorporate texts that attempt to place Krishna in history? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction in Yadavas Death
It is mentioned in the article that the Yadavas were exterminated in a fesetival but it is not so. It is as follows. Gandhari(wife of Dhritarastra) curses Krishna that he would witness the killing of his own kind after 36 years. Krishna accepts this with pleasure. On Vishwamitra and other rishis had come to Dwarka. The Vrishnis or the Yadavas dressed up a man named Samba as a pregnant woman and went to the rishis to mock them and ask them whether the child will be a male or a female. The rishis became angry and cursed that a mace will be born which will end the life of their race and it so happened. The Yadavas went to Balarama after the birth of the mace which started killing them. Balarama told them to pound it and throw it in the sea. They did as told but could not pound a piece of the mace into powder which they threw it away into the sea as a whole. The powder was blown ashore by the sea and weeds started growing where the powder was blown. The Yadavas went to drink in that place. After getting drunk, Satyaki insulted Kritavarma of the killing of the sons of the Pandavas at night for which Kritavarma replied with the killing of Bhoorisravas by Satyaki when he had thrown away his weapons and Satyaki killed him. A fight ensued between Satyaki and Kritavarma in which Kritavarma was killed by Satyaki. The Yadavas who were watching this then got into the fight and sice they had no weapons, they picked up the weeds and started throwing them on each other. Each weed became a mace and started killing them. Krishna saw this and knew that their end was near. He picked up a handfull of weeds and threw it at them. It killed all of them. Only Krishna was left as Balarama had retired and had decided to give up his life. Krishna went to look for Balarama and found him dead. The piece which was thrown into the sea was swallowed by a fish and that fish was caught by a hunter who was surprised to find the piece inside. He thought that it would be a good arrowhead. Krishna had also retired into the forest. Krishna had only one weak point. His left sole and only through that would Krishna be killed. The hunter who had the piece mistook Krishna's foot for a deer and shot the arrow which had the piece and it pierced Krishna's left foot. The hunter felt sorry for Krishna and tried to help him but to no avail. Krishna thanked the hunter for relieving of his human bonds and went to Vaikunta (The abode of Lord Vishnu whose incarnation was Krishna). Thus came the end of Krishna.

Kindly make this correction.

R. Sudarsan 15:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)R.Sudarsan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudarsananush89 (talk • contribs)

lordkrishna.info
I would like to know from you all if lordkrishna.info would be a good link to add here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.90.253 (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on moving the term Avatar to primary topic
There is an ongoing discussion [here] about moving the term "Avatar" from the popular film back to its original place as primary topic. Hoverfish Talk 14:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The term Hinduism should be Vaishnavism
The term Hinduism used by Western Scholars is inacurate and misleading nomenclature. The word derives from the mispronouncitation of the river Sindhu, and was used by Muslim invaders to refer to the residents of those people who lived east of the River Sindhu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rozenthalm (talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a notable third-party source that verifies this information? - SudoGhost (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am agree with this statement. Not all Hindu accept Krishna either. Actually, mean of Hindu is common knowledge, look Hindu topic tells precisely so. Used to be Hindoo in British Empire. (Januarythe18th (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)).

More non-Vaishnavites worship Krishna than Vaishnavites. The famous Guruvayur Temple, Jagannath_Temple,_Puri, and Badrinath_Temple are non-Vaishnavite temples. Then Vaishnavism is a part of Hinduism. Sankarrukku (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If they worship Krishna, then they are being Vaishnavite. Can you explain? (Januarythe18th (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)).
 * Do you have any kind of source that confirms what you're saying? - SudoGhost (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

An overwhelming majority of the Hindus are Smartas. See smartism. Please also see what is Vaishnavism. If you want to argue that Vaishnavism is not a part of Hinduism, that should be done on the Talk:Vaishnavism page. Sankarrukku (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Hindus believe in Smritis and Shrutis both.Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Embarrasing Error
The very first sentence is wrong. Even though Krishna is the central character of the Bhagavad Gita, he is NOT the author. Thigle (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur and propose a change here. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 12:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wives of SriKrishna
This articles provides no details about the wives of Krishna (except names). There is no briefing about the 8 marriages, the order in which the marriages happen, details of the 8 wives (from where, daughter of whom etc). These are narrated in detail in the puranas. The details about 'Temples of Krishna' also also greatly insufficient. Without these details, I suspect whether this incomplete article can be given a 'Good Article' status. Anish Viswa  08:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

On Recent Edit
I am requesting a discussion on: --Tito Dutta (Talk) 23:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tito, not used wiki talk before. Hope this works. Shashi Joshi (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Rg Veda 4.16.13 Krsnaa as the Demon, Spirit of Darkness is misleading
I have read the sanskrit and the english of that verse and I have not found the word Krsna at all in that verse. I removed it as vandalism as it was false and seemed to be a defamation statement. You can read it here. http://sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv04016.htm Rg Veda Book 4, Hymn 16 Nityanandachandra (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

updated. I see the word Krsnaa in the sanskrit but it is not a name. This section can be better written. It misleads the reader into thinking that the character of the this section, Krishna, is related to the use of this word Krishnaa meaning darkness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nityanandachandra (talk • contribs) 01:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Nityanandachandra (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As poet, the name Krishna appears in Book 8. While Monier-William numbers it 8.85, numbers it 8.74.  quotes the exact verse where a Krishna is described as an asura. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 17:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Krishna as author of the Gita
Is there any citation for Krishna's being considered the author of the Gita? As far as I can tell, though Krishna dictated much of the work to Ajuna, Vyasa is its traditional author. -- Bateau (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Image addition
There have been several images added onto this page in a haphazard manner, not confirming to MoS. Since this article is of GA status, I suggest cleaning up the article and any images proposed to be added be discussed here first. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 09:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. There are too many images. I am removing some images using WP:BOLD. I suggest you do the same. If there is any dispute for image addition/removal, only then should we have a discussion about that particular image. Please note the reason of removal/addition on talk in such a case. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 09:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed:

A report to the authorities
I tried to make several articles better but all my edits were reverted and I was not able to contribute as my edits were reverted unnecessarily by the user AroundTheGlobe, I am new here so i wrote to his talk page but he gave useless excuses so I asked the administrator for help, he reported that he has misused his rollback privileges and has uselessly reverted edits by several other uses which was mentioned in the report so I again started editing but they were again reverted. I don't know what to do as if I do not contribute to articles like I did in the Radha Krishna one as it did not had good pictures. Please do the needful. JagadhatriJagadhatri 10:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, Jagadhatri, show some understanding. This is a GA-class article (GA = Good Article) and you are bound to find resistance against adding text or images without the consensus of its various editors. Articles should not become overloaded with images, and especially so GAs. If you think that a particlar image should replace some other for a particular reason, please discuss it here, see if you can get some consensus first and act accordingly. In this way reverts and frustration could be avoided. Hoverfish Talk 17:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Authorized form of Krisha's name
What is this? There are no comments here about it. And what does "authorized" mean? Authorized by whom? Misty MH (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The link http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/sh85073290.html generated a 404 not found error code on 11/26/2012. Misty MH (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Revelation story
I think there is some story where Krishna appears in front of three-million people and then they die. Am I correct or did i confuse some detail of the story with another?EsB (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Forum for general discussion?
It says at top, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Is there such a forum? And how does one find the link to it? Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Krishna portrayed with BLUE skin. WHY? Add to article
The article mentions several times that Krishna is portrayed with BLUE skin but may not explain WHY. I have observed that UFOs or UAP can often be BLUE or AMBER (gold, yellow-orange, orange-yellow) or BLUE AND AMBER? As there seems to be some connection between The Powers That Be above the Earth and various beings of various scriptures and "myths", this seems like an avenue worth adding to articles about these various scriptures, "myths", and histories. I know that the speculative Ancient Aliens series repeatedly refers to the Mahabharata and its fascinating representations of various Powers That Be, some of which certainly belong in a discussion of UFOs/UAP, and of the Mahabharata itself. '''No human race on Earth that I am aware of in history has had blue skin. So WHY is Krishna portrayed with BLUE skin?''' Several sources? Links? And please add this in a complete way to the article. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Was Krishna Incorporated in Jain list of heroes?
This seems like a POV issue. The statement that Krishna was 'incorporated' into the list, it served as a 'problem' and the concept of Baladeva, Vasudeva and Prativasudeva was used to 'solve' seems overly biased. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Mantra
Because various editors change the mantra in the infobox, I have set it to the well-known Hare Krishna mantra. But there are various views, so it is best we determine here what mantra is more appropriate to use instead of changing it every now and then, at least so that patrolling editors can find somewhere some sort of consensus to go by. I link here to an old discussion about this issue: Archive 1. Please discuss. Hoverfish Talk 21:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing attestation of Krishna in the Vedas
Can we claim that Krishna is a Vedic god if he is completely unmentioned in the Vedas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.70.177 (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Krishna is Vishnu. Vishnu has been mentioned in the Vedas. Vedas were compiled to their present form by Vedavyasa. Vyasa identified Krishna as Vishnu, so we can conclude Krishna's Atma is the same Paramatma that's mentioned by the Vedas. 59.184.165.226 (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Raghav Sharman

Krishna and Jesus
Where does the whole idea of Krishna inspiring the Jesus myth come from? It just seems like a HUGE stretch of the imagination, with no basis in reality, and all it does is mislead everyone who happens to believe everything that they read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.252.56 (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Krishna's last words
According to this article, Krishna says, moments before his death to the hunter who has attacked him by mistake, the following: "O Jara, you were Vaali in your previous birth, killed by myself as Rama in Tretayuga. Here you had a chance to even it and since all acts in this world are done as desired by me, you need not worry for this".

I tried going through the references (83-85). One of them brings me back to this page, one of them links me to Ganguli's translation in which this is not mentioned, and the third is not accessible. Neither the Itihasa (of Mahabharata) nor the Puranas say that Jara is Vali. In fact, many scholars of Ramayana opine that Vali got moksha, which means that he did not take birth as Jara.

For this reason, I'm removing the above quoted sentence. If anybody has a concrete evidence, they can re-add the sentence along with the citation. 59.184.165.226 (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Raghav Sharman

Astrological dating
I checked some of the last reverts of this page, this one, I agree with this edit, but, remembering that it's just a astrological view, i think we can still insert this way:-

"Based on scriptural details and astrological calculations the date of Krishna's birth, known as Janmashtami, is 21 July 3228 BCE. "

I hope it will work. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed to including traditional dates for Krishna's birth, if there was/were such date(s) generally accepted by scholarly sources. But as the Outlook article you cite above shows, these dates are a dime a dozen, and almost universally rejected/ignored by actual scholars. As for the book by Frank Marcello Antonetti, it is a self-published fringe work by a person with no publication record in the area and not a reliable source. We can find dozens of such new age/fringe publications on google books, which while convenient, should not be used for sourcing an article on a subject covered by numerous scholarly journal articles and books published by university and academic presses. Abecedare (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's see, if i have found better sources. What about these ones, <<- Times of India, by B V Raman,, , , , Maybe not date but the year can be added if tried. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, not a single of those is a reliable source. If you think otherwise for any particular source, we can discuss it here on at WP:RSN. In general: it is abetter idea to read the best available sources on a topic and then try to summarize their contents on wikipedia; starting with (often dubious) wikipedia content, and then trying to find sources is often fraught with perils, as in this case. Abecedare (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * WP RSN may help, but only when more people would look forward in this regard. No hurries, can be done whenever other editors take interest here. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility to Outsiders
I can’t help but feel that this entry is written for people who know the topic better than I do. From a know-nothing outsider’s viewpoint, there are so many unknown references initially that I fear many would give up before getting the gist of who Krishna is. Shouldn’t the first paragraph be broad general information that anyone can understand? Try to clear your educated mind and consider this phrase from the perspective of an outsider: “…and is also listed in the 24 Keshava Namas of Lord Vishnu which are recited and praised at the beginning of all Vedic pujas.” It is wonderful to delve into the very deepest most obscure detail but initially I believe you must deal with a broad spectrum, dictionary like definition which eliminates all other unknowns (not commonly known)– that is if this information is to be accessible to outsiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.186.125 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Quotes
These quotes are irrelevant to the section and have no required secondary source for interpretation. --Neil N  talk to me 00:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. Copying reasons from my talk-page on why I too had removed those quotes:
 * The Literary sources section is to outline the main primary sources for the subject, and not go into details of what exactly those sources say (the current version of the section requires further clean-up to better match its purpose), and
 * Selective quotation is a bad way to explain the topic given the immense amound of primary and secondary literature on Krishna. There may a few instances in which including a quote from primary sources would be justified, but in those case we should provide enough context based on scholarly secondary sources to explain why that is the case (see WP:QUOTEFARM which discusses some of these issues). Even in those instances we should try to avoid sectarian translation of the quotes unless, again, there is a particular reason not to.
 * I just noticed that the edit also removed a commented out para about Krishna in IVC; I don't know when or by whom that particular quote were commented out and the cited website is a deadlink, and likely unacceptable as a source (my initial thought is that Krishna as an IVC diety is a fringe belief, although if it turns out to be popular fringe belief and is attested by reliable sources, it may be worth mentioning in the wikipedia article). If that para is an issue, it can be discussed separately. Abecedare (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Krishna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120217161420/http://kurukshetra.nic.in/museum-website/archeologicaltreasure.html to http://kurukshetra.nic.in/museum-website/archeologicaltreasure.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Books
please add all the books related to the lord krishna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anurag sitar (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Revert Reason
Link to revert. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, please elaborate on how the content you deleted was undue. Previous and next Births holds high importance in Jainism especially of a Tirthankara. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  10:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy Beck's volume titled "Alternative Krishnas" has 9 chapters, each covering an alternative vision of Krishna. None of these should swamp the mainstream ideas on Krishna. We need appropriate sources that cover all ideas of Krishna in order to determine due weightage. We also need to know how important Krishna is in Jainism. Can you provide sources for that please? - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Krishna is the ninth Vasudeva who are Salakapurusa (heroes on whose life Jain Scriptures are based). The primary sources of his Jain version of story are Salakapurusa and Harivamsa Purana. However, I would have to search for scholar coverage of the texts. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  10:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The source I shared, is it not good enough? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  10:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The "source" you shared, an article contributed by Padmanabh S. Jaini, says Even a cursory glance at the Jaina Puranas makes it clear that the Jaina authors who composed them knew the Hindu Epics and Puranas well, studied them with the attention worthy of a board of censors examining the offensive portions of a story, and finally decided to rewrite the script in conformity with their own doctrines and sensibilities. So it is WP:UNDUE to write about Jain mythology as if it were a fact or as if it is accepted myth by all parties. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I cited Wendy Doniger, not Jaini. Please recheck in sfn. Here is another source of German religious scholar depicting the relationship of Krishna and Arishtanemi Jainism by Helmuth von Glasenapp -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  11:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You referred to a book edited by Wendy Doniger with articles by many contributors. The article by Jaini that you referred to makes it clear that the Jaina mythology has been created around personas that originally belonged to the Hindu mythology. You are on very tricky territory here, and you should edit this content only after you have acquired a thorough scholarship of the sources. Please don't use Google books and isolated quotes without full understanding. The other book by von Glasenapp has already been discussed on your talk page, and you were told by admins not to use it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How about this as a source to throw some light on importance of Krishna in Jainism ?
 * Remember that newspapers are only reliable for news. This is a film review. So, unless you can establish that the authors are scholars, it can't be used. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that info about Krishna in hell and Tirthankara needs to be included. I have read it earlier in a RS, don't remember where. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine as long as WP:DUE weight is respected and the Jain narratives are mentioned as "counternarratives." (The source was mentioned above.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hare Krishnas are not Hindus
Proposal to classify Hare Krishnas as non Hindus given the fact that they contradict mainstream Hindu believe of Brahman being the supreme god. also worship of srila prabhupada is not universal especially of living human beings. Also the birth date of Krishna is disputed given the fact that the Vedas have a composition date later than that of what is claimed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.148.92 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You may have a point (or not), but everything on Wikipedia needs a reliable source. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"Birthdate" and "historicity"
The article contained speculations about a proposed "birthdate" and about a proposed identification of Krishna with Vasudeva Govinda Krishna, in the lead, the "Birth"-section, and a "Historicity and evidence"-section. I've made the following changes diff:
 * Lead: moved the identification with Vasudeva Govinda Krishna to the end of the lead; added the mentioning of seceral proposed birth-dates;
 * "Birth"-section: moved
 * "Based on scriptural details and astrological calculations, the date of Krishna's birth, known as Janmashtami, is 21 February 3228 BCE."
 * and the accompanying note to the final section of the article, and copy-edited it there. The sentence should be attributed, instead of pretending to present plain "fact." See also below, on presenting religious narrative as historical facts.


 * "Historicity and evidence"-section:
 * Renamed to " Speculative Proposed datings"; of course we can argue about this header, but "Historicity and evidence" is plain wrong, when assuming a concrete birthdate for a deity who's narratives do not contain such a birthdate, as if he was a historical person. Keep religious narratives religious; when confusing them with fact-based history, religious narratives will enevitably become lose their value.
 * Merged the info in the note and the info in this section on the proposed birthdates; there were several doublures.
 * Merged and copy-edited th einfo on the identification with Vasudeva Govinda Krishna.

Unfortunately, my edits were undone, with the edit-summary
 * "remove new inserted dating section, dating mentioned once already". I fail to understand this rationale; it is incorrect, since the info was not new, but a grouping together of info which was already there. And it duplicates and scatters the info on the birthdate again. The same edit added one of those proposed birthdates to the infobox, without any reference or presenting the context (which was removed). It also removed sourced info from the lead, and the mentioning of the lst section.

Finally, this edit also changed "Eighth and complete avatar of Vishnu or Svayam Bhagavan" into "ninth and complete avatar of Vishnu or Svayam Bhagavan". There are, of course, several lists, but there is long-standing concencus at the Dashavatara that Krishna is the eight avatar. All in all, this edit was not an improvement.

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   10:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * All Hinduism pages suffer from intense POV pushing and half-baked ideas. Thanks a lot for making an effort to clean this one up. You have my support. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this article needs serious cleanup and surgery. The article has been tagged for a while. Blogs and websites such as drikpanchang.com are non-WP:RS. Even the source cited above is puzzling, because there is no page 160 in that Knott's book (I see it was cited by someone before @JJ began his edits, fwiw, the Appendix starts on page 111 and Index on page 133; Krishna is mentioned a bit on pages 30-37 and 50-55, and occasionally elsewhere, but I see no support for 3228 BCE or astrological calculations in that book). I urge a serious check of the sources for quality, and actual verification. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * just like the Vaishnavism, this article tells very little, almost close to nothing, about the history of Krishna-religiosity. Isn't that strange? If I understand correctly, it's an amalgam of (Yujur) Vedic Narayana and local deities like Krishna, which rose to prominence in the Mahabaratha?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Krishna. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110713061921/http://content.iskcon.com/icj/4_2/4_2charisma.html to http://content.iskcon.com/icj/4_2/4_2charisma.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081013214426/http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/07/sss/ho_1982.220.8.htm to http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/07/sss/ho_1982.220.8.htm

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) 12:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Childhood and Youth
This section could definitely stand to get a once-over by an experienced editor. I corrected what I knew that I could but there are still sections like this,

> The other miracles, like changing a basket of fruit into precious stones and jewels of a fruit vendor due to her offering of fruit to the Lord for her love for the godchild, are well known.

> Even though he is doing battle with the serpent, he is in no real danger and treats it like a game.

Though I feel comfortable making black-and-white edits including spell checking and typography errors, I suggest that someone review the article for sentence structure and readability.

208.49.93.2 (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone check the sources about Krishna's supposed virginal birth? And why is there contradiction between the two paragraphs about his birth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B07:644E:CE5B:7080:46BB:EAC:3F3E (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)