Talk:Nanda (Hinduism)

Needs more
Needs more info. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nanda was King and a Kshatriya
The cattle and the stick: an ethnographic profile of the Raut of Chhattisgarh

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=wT-BAAAAMAAJ&q=krishna+was+abhira&dq=krishna+was+abhira&hl=en&ei=VD-QTZagH8qycMXUmYsK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBDge

he was ancestor of yadavs

Urban political behaviour

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=3hBbAAAAIAAJ&q=yadav+rajputs&dq=yadav+rajputs&hl=en&ei=IXiZTZGaIITnrAeb1oHqCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwADg8 Nand was a close relative of Lord Krishna's father Vasudev and he also fall in the Yaduvansh heirarchy see: Yaduvansh Tree at Fort Jaisalmer(a valuable source of Yadav's history) King kans, the maternal uncle of Lord Krishna was the powerful king, he kept Vasudev under imprisonment and rest of the yadav kings including Maharaj Nand of Gokul accepted subordination to Maharaj Kans. This fact can be further verified at the historical places like Gokul, Barsana and Vrindawan, in all ancient monuments/remnents, Nand has been figured as Raja Nand. The cow was a sort of currency and used under Barter system as money during ancient period in India. Having number of cows was a symbol of wealth and every Hindu King used to have a goshala(Place for cows to live). It was termed as Godhan(Cow Money). At many places in History and ancient Hindu literatures Kings used to donate cows to Brahmins. Maharshi Parushram faught and killed Kshtriyas 21 times and the root cause for the fight was a cow which was forcibly taken from his father by a Kshatrita.http://www.swami.org/pages/swami/articles/birth.php Mahensingha (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the use of reflist from this (but retained the references), as otherwise your refs appear at the bottom of the page's last post (at the moment mine!) rather than as part of this post. LookingGlass (talk)

हा नंद बाबा क्षत्रिय हटा एकता मंच (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The name should be "Nand Baba" not Nanda mythology
In all historic records the name mentioned is as "Nand Baba" not as Nanda which is different from Nand baba
 * The article is based on mythological theory of Lord Krishna's mythological father Nanda. However, the article may have a redirection link to the term Nand Baba.--Mahensingha 15:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Confusion?
The intro tells us that Vasudeva is the father of Krishna and that Nanda raised him. However, in the body of the article we are told that Vasudeva is actually another name for Nanda. If this is so then it sshould be included in the introduction. However it goes on to say that Nanda could not have children, and that Yosada conceived through a virgin birth. Would someone please clarify? As it stands the article is an uncomfortable blend of scripture and encyclopedia. (see e.g Agdistis for example of encyclopedic entry on myth/scripture) LookingGlass (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Its a mythological theory of spirituals and they logically relate both Vasudeva and Nanda to be one, though being two separate bodies. The Lord Vishnu promised to be born to Nanda and Yasoda, The Nanda and Yasoda had blessings for God being born to them, so if Lord Krishna was the son of Vasudeva then Vasudeva and Nanda both are equal or one.--Mahensingha 15:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mahensingha. The scriptural/mythological concept you outline is not a problem.  Christian theology has the Trinity.  The problem is that the article does not describe this.  Perhaps you would improve it? LookingGlass (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks LookingGlass for the suggestion. I shall surely try, if I find any of the sources helping expansion of the Article.--Mahensingha 18:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No probs, but I think there are two separate issues here. The article as it currently stands seems to me to need more references, or at least verifiable etc sources.  But the problem is that the article is written as if it were an historical account whereas in fact it is a scripture.   For wiki even historical account needs to have facts sourced and verifiable, and be presented as a commentary upon historical accounts not POV statements.  As it stands there is no acknowledgment in the article that it is referring to a myth/scripture and it is from this that the confusion arises.  Wiki is an encyclopedia not a repository for miscellaneous accounts.  Hence in my opinion that clarifying the article's fundamental language and style does not of itself require sources.   To do so would simply be to reword  POV statements so that they respect the NPOV requirements of wiki.  Any such change would effectively be unarguable anyway as, in the concrete language that is Wikipedia, being an immortal for instance is not a property that a human being may have even though it is a belief that people variously hold about human beings.  These distinctions need to be made explicit in wikipedia though not for scripture.  There are two quite different ways of exoanding consciousness involved.  LookingGlass (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Nanda (mythology) Jesus Mythology? Mary Mythology? noah Mythology? jacob Mythology? Joseph saint Mythology? be respectful please and use his full name.
I see that jesus adopted father (Joseph) has his name on wiki as (Saint Joseph) with no mention of Mythology in the title what so ever, infact i dont see the term Mythology given in any title across most of biblical charaters on wiki so why do it on the indian characters?

I suggest that instead of writing (Nana Mythology) You could write...

Nand Baba (Foster Father of krishna) Nand Baba (Indian sant)..... sant is a sanskrit word which is similar to saint. Nand Baba (Krishnas Adopted father) Nand baba (head of the Gopas).... which would tie up along side his family tree in this wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandvanshi

If you wish i can change it myself but im just telling you this now as i dont wish to go into a childish edit war, i just want to value and settle the compliants in the talk page which i have just notice and agree with.

I would like the Name Mythology stripped from the (title) of this wiki page unless you can place Mythology across every charaters name within the bible on wiki and then i would be happy, till then i dont agree with it92.236.96.38 (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Caplock
 * First of all, let me clarify that the article is mythological and does not claim to be historical one. Its not written at all for associating with any particular caste. I am aware of the edit wars on all Indian caste related article and definitely do not want it here. The contents simply focus on mythological aspects. There are separate articles on Nandvanshi Ahirs and other claiming castes on wiki for historical and sociological purposes. Secondly, as far as my view and experience is concerned, I can only say that if it is converted to any other form, then definitely its going to loose its mythological character, which in fact is of great value for all Indian readers. However, as far as Nand Gop or Nand Baba or Maharaj Nand are the words which I learnt about the lead character does not make any difference, he everywhere remains Nand, But, the word mythology is still important because sooner you see it from the historical point, we lack reliable sources for the contents. Still, If you find any better solution for the issue, we can discuss.--Mahensingha 09:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Further, let me tell you that the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandvanshi refers this page through wikilinks and also in See Also Section. Please check.--Mahensingha 11:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to understand my point!

It's like picking up a children book, opening it up and seeing a picture of a horse with big letters above the horse saying (HORSE).

Example: take a look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom

Does the title includes the word (SCIENCE) in brackets next to the word atom at the top of the page? it seems very immature & patronising to construct a page in that manner which is why it is very rare to see pages marked in that way.

Next this idea of me pushing caste is all in your head, All i wanted was to give his ((full name)) but For some strange unknown reason to me, You denied this stating "The article is based on mythological theory of Lord Krishna's mythological father Nanda. However, the article may have a redirection link to the term Nand Baba" so my option was to do what others wiki editors have done and choose a title which would be suitable so that we can use his full name which is Nand Baba, nothing at all about pushing caste and you know it, i even gave the word Sant, sant is not a caste!

Removing The word (Mythology) from the title & placing it with (HIS ACTUAL FULL NAME) will not magically make it a historical or non historical event, so i totally disagree with the excuse "loose its mythological character", the page is already linked as Mythology so nothing is lost in any event as it will always be found under that section.

MR singh all i am asking from you is to be respectful to the hindus, a voice has been raised in the talk page to strip Mythology from the *wording* of the heading and replacing it with (HIS FULL NAME) as you should of done to start of with... his name is not Nanda Mythology, you are damaging the page and hindering it rather than improving it! How will writing the wrong name and not giving his second name while placing a bracket title mythology improve it? it improves nothing and the job of a wiki editor is to improve the page, yet just look at this page.

Thank you and will wait for your reply.92.236.96.38 (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Caplock

I see the change has been done, Thank you92.236.96.38 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Caplock