Talk:Rishyasringa

Untitled
I thought the point of the story of Rishyasringa was to show the insecurity of virtue founded upon ignorance, and there is nothing in this article about that. C. Rajagopalachari seems to agree, in chapter 32 of his summary of the Mahabharata (http://home.att.net/~gitaprasad/mahabharata.htm). I know that his summary is not an authoritative source, so would someone with knowledge of the actual epic be able to offer assistance? Adityan 17:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect that it is there, and repeated in more than one work, because it a good story-teller's story, and that the lessons that are drawn from it are secondary. Imc 18:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ekasringa
I thought Ekasringa (one horned) was another character, not the same as this one, who has two horns? Imc 18:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rebirth claims
Wikipedia is not the place to post rebirth claims, unless verified by a third-party and referenced by a reliable source. The rebirth claimant does not fulfil the WP:notability norms, so I have removed it. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
A proposal to merge with Shringi Rishi has been here since 2009. I agree with this merger; they seem to be two articles about the same person. Any thoughts? --KarlB (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Same person. Merge. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Added source
Article was complete mess but now i added many sources.There is one primary source but i have used it in addition to other sources not relied completely on that.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Order
Such arguements should be avoided, see this and that. Also, if we take tyhis arguement into consideration, but this is not proper reason. Please don't start edit war, for the reasons which seems totally improper and the edits seems to be POV pushing. Also some comments like What if Gautama Buddha........ seems too inappropriate. Is it like, here you are not for religion, no one is of speific religion, as of me. Are you here for religion. Do you really do it for proving your religious ideology superior. Edit Wikipedia neutrally,pleease. You can surely have interest in specific topic, but such being the representative of religious ideology and repreasenting it seems too improper? Your such comments look like you are here categorising other editors into religious categories. No edit should be done for religion. It should be your interest not your religion here. JaMongKut (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

At least don't make such comments to me, I'm not here to represent any religious ideology, I'm religiously neutral here. PleaseJaMongKut (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No! this is not neutral, you are constantly pushing Buddhism POV in the articles (Asura, Rishi, Rishyasringa, Rakshasa) without any valid reason. Why should be Buddhism at first, does the sources do it? Most sources like Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities (if you want the most neutral veiw on all religions), Sanskrit Dictionary by Monier Monier-Williams, etc. all but Hinduism at first. The sources of Buddhism section of the article Rishi also mention Hindu at first ([Maheshi, Mahesi, Māheśī, Maheśī: 4 definitions], Wisdomlib) Since, Wikipedia follows secondary sources, we should do so. There is no point of such arguments. I am reverting till the discussion is cleared and if there is so much problem on Asura (in which I tried to call other users, but only one came), then please move it to Asura (Hinduism) as majority of the info is about the Hindu one. (Which you were doing at first) If this is not enough, then Bye, do whatever you like. . 245CMR . •👥📜 14:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please check the matter.


 * It's an interesting question which story was 'first'; I guess both comm from a body of common lore. But given JaMangKut's tendencies of pov-pushing and edit-warring, I don't think they shouldn't change things before gaining consensus. I'll support a topic-ban if necessary, some point in the future. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * aren't Such comments like,  "Hinduism should be first"  POV pushing at all!!! Instead Clearing them by saying, "there's no such genneralization or rule" is instead a POV pushing ???. Please let me know, if I said something wrong. What I'm POV pushing?? Hinduism should be first otherwise it is POV pushing, That's what you are saying. And please, JaMongKut (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am telling tge reason and you are ignoring it again and again, you are not following the census, not me. . 245CMR . •👥📜 05:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm really sorry, thinking it as my own message, I don't read the first para of your message, sorry for that. But considering the chronology of sources doesn't seem constructive at all.
 * As of Asura, your point of move seems not related to the disputed edit now. It was for earlier edit. But considering here totally different discussion from that disputed edit. I would suggesst instead, if you wanna, you can try to make new such article as I've already suggested. As from that discussion, it was feeled that the need of a broad concept article was more. Hence, if you wanna a special Hindu article you can make another. But as an broad concept article is required, hence keep it as it is, please. Surely, you can use info from this article to make a new one. JaMongKut (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am reverting to the version (Asura) where there was no dispute and supported by census, User:JRDkg. Give acceptable Justification first rather reverting my edits. . 245CMR . •👥📜 12:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)