Talk:Svayam Bhagavan/Archive 2

Redirect?
I removed the redirect from Talk:Svayam bhagavan to Talk:Krishna because these are separate articles. -- Shruti14 t c s 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)It was not me - it was the admin who added the redirect from Talk:Svayam bhagavan this Talk:Krishna. I will have to revert unless you get it in writing from him that its okay to have it separate. In general discussions should be common. -- Wikidās ॐ 20:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me - I have contacted User:NawlinWiki (the admin who redirected the page) and am waiting for a reply. -- Shruti14 t c s 22:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the reply I received:
 * "No problem. The second time the Svayam bhagavan article was rewritten, I did not redirect it, but I forgot about the talk page.  Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)"
 * -- Shruti14 t c s 22:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats good news, no need to redirect then. Unless everyone here thinks it should be. Possibly a question to ask in a few days again... Wikidās ॐ 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should - it's a separate article on a separate (although related) subject with separate, different issues and problems that need to be fixed - hence a separate talk page. -- Shruti14 t c s 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
If there are any other points on view on this specific concept in Krsna centered Vaisnavism, I would like to hear it. If there are concepts that are discussed by other, let them discuss them on the relevant pages. Please put POV tags on the relevant sections and I will be able to balance it up.-- Wikidās ॐ 20:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have fixed much of the POV - most of it was just obvious simple stuff (for example - "Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead" rather than "Some schools believe...") Many of these statements were made in various places in the article and I have fixed many of them. -- Shruti14 t c s 22:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. I will remove the tag to your approval. Wikidās ॐ 22:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind - I hadn't really looked at the full article, and there is still much POV as well as badly written, unencyclopedic statements that are neither quoted nor sourced - for example "So the next question of the Vidura concerns the effectively possible answer, to which all doubts should be dispelled. How is Krsna's son Aniruddha, who is also the cause of Mahā-Viṣṇu, doing? This logic is hard to argue with. Why? Because He is the cause of the Ṛg Veda" Until all of these are removed and/or properly edited - the NPOV tag should remain, and perhaps a cleanup tag should be added on account of the badly written sentences -- Shruti14 t c s 22:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We have to look into the improvements of existing sections, and only then adding some new material. Ironing out needs to done, but it good that we are not disputing it in principle. Wikidās ॐ 07:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing to dispute here - the article is clearly about a specific subject, namely Krishna as "Svayam bhagavan". My complaints are specifically about poor wording, grammar, and spelling - this really hurts the quality of the article.  The POV issues are specifically related to wording, and a contradiction (see below). -- Shruti14 t c s 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested that tags to be placed at the particular instances of POV discovered. I will look at it and balance it up. Main article tag is thus not required as per your comment above. If you want to keep it let us discuss it here as you said Nothing to dispute here - the article is clearly about a specific subject, namely Krishna as "Svayam bhagavan".-- Wikidās ॐ 14:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction?
WOW - there are a LOT of problems in this article, including this: first the article talks about the concept that Krishna is the source of all avatars (the main subject of this article), then goes on to state "Narayana is the original form of Vishnu who is the supreme and this is supported by the shastras, Vedic scriptures or scriptures in pursuance of the Vedic version. This fact is accepted universally across many traditions..." MAJOR CONTRADICTION HERE! (And also, technically, POV in the other point of view - not the same POV found in the rest of the article!!) This needs to be fixed, perhaps with references to the 'mainstream' schools of Vaishnavism who do uphold this view about Narayana/Vishnu. -- Shruti14 t c s 22:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To clear this one up I guess a section of the difference between tad-ekatma and svayam rupa should be added. Thanks for noting it. I think to this section other point of view may be added to address the issue of theology. Wikidās ॐ 07:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly the intention - I was surprised to see it so directly added, though. It should be phrased specifically as a different point of view to avoid confusion and POV. -- Shruti14 t c s 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should be addressed and I had a look at it. Let me know what you think. -- Wikidās ॐ 10:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will say that the term has been used outside of the Gaudiya/Nimbaraka/Vallabha sects (including Sri/Madhva views) to refer to Narayana - however it should be noted as such. The difference should be clearly defined to avoid confusion.  The main reason I tagged the article for POV was that POV statements exist for both points of view - contradicting each other as mentioned above. (That wasn't the only part of the article where it happened, just the most prominent.)  Both should be expressed as different points of view on the subject. -- Shruti14 t c s 22:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to ask you to provide any evidence from the original texts. I will accept evidence that is no verifiable, but for the article we will need more verifiable quotes. the link you provided is good, bu is argumentative, have nothing to do with Sri/Madhva and is only valid in the context of the Gaudiya concept. That seems obvious. Wikidās ॐ 22:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize that - as I said this is the first thing that came up in a quick search simply to find a Madhva view on the subject. (I haven't found many Sri Vaishnava sources yet, though admittedly I haven't spent that much time searching for either as of now.) -- Shruti14 t c s 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Red Links
I found several red links in this article. If their subjects are notable, articles about them should be created, but if not, the red links should be removed. -- Shruti14 t c s 22:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I recognize that many of these were really misspellings, such as VedaS instead of Vedas and have fixed many of these; however, many 'real' red links still exist. -- Shruti14 t c s 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of them is work in progress. Some redlinks are the same as in the parent article.-- Wikidās ॐ 07:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NOT NEUTRAL
The term "Svayam bhagavan" is also used for Narayana (Vishnu). Ref:. The article only concentrates on Krishna aspect as Svayam bhagavan.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is certainly true - and the article did originally make a note of that, but went on to say that this article will ONLY cover the view of Krishna, and not Vishnu/Narayana. I had removed that sentence because it was both badly written (grammar, etc) and incorrect - no article should cover just one view of anything.  -- Shruti14 t c s 22:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The artcle is about the concept. This concept is not present in the sastra for Narayana. Svayam is not used in the vedic literature in relation to Narayana. Thus is the specific focus of the article in a number of particular traditions. Wikidās ॐ 22:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If anyone got quotes from original sources on "Svayam bhagavan" used for Narayana (Vishnu) let us know or just add the reference to the text with a comment.
 * All references I could find in Bh.P.: 2.7.21 (used for Dhanvantari), 5.24.27 (Vamana), 7.1.1 (Visnu), 8.5.4 (Vaikunthadeva), 10.83.6-7 (Krsna). Re Krsna see Brahma Vaivarta Purana where He is called paripūrṇatama many times. --Jan 82.208.2.214 (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jan, I will look it up and will update accordingly with relevant links.-- Wikidās ॐ 15:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article still focuses almost solely on the Gaudiya, etc. view of the phrase "svayam bhagavān" as referring to Krishna, which is the only view mentioned in the lead. -- Shruti14 t c s 19:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Meaning
"There are a number of meanings of the name 'Krishna', ( in IAST). The word in Sanskrit has the literal meaning of "black" or "dark". The Brahma Samhita describes Krishna's personal complexion as being "tinged with the hue of blue clouds", and he is often depicted in paintings with a blue or dark-blue skin. In murtis, Krishna is more commonly portrayed as being dark skinned or black. For instance the Jagannatha deity (a form of Krishna, whose name means Master and Origin of the World) at Puri is black in colour, with his brother Balarama and sister Subhadra, both having much lighter complexions.

The Gaudiya tradition explains the primary meaning of the name Krishna as being “all-attractive”. This is justified by an interpretation of a verse in the Mahābhārata, as given in the Chaitanya Charitamrita. Commentators from different Vaisnava traditions on the Vishnu sahasranama offer explanations on a similar lines."

Contemporary Vaisnava acaryas present the following explanation: "The color of the Personality of Godhead, Krsna, is described here as nilotpala-dala, meaning that it is like that of a lotus flower with petals tinted blue and white. People always ask why Krsna is blue. The color of the Lord has not been imagined by an artist. The color of the Lord is not poetical imagination. There are authoritative descriptions in the Brahma Samhita, Srimad-Bhagavatam, Bhagavad-gita and many of the Puranas of the Lord's body, His weapons and all other paraphernalia.""

Why was this added? The article is about the concept of "svayam bhagavān", not about Krishna. This information is better-suited for the "Etymology" section of the Krishna article. -- Shruti14 t c s 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW - re Jaggantha, devotees of Vishnu will see him as Vishnu. Devotees of Krishna worship him with his brother Balarama and his sister. I would love to hear what pandas will write back. Wikidās ॐ 22:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First; The reason that Krishna is depicted as BLUE is fact that in traditional Hinduism and traditional Vaishnavism (outside of ISKCON/Gaudiyas) he is an avatara of Vishnu/Narayana. The symbolic reason that Vishnu is Blue, is because it is the color of The endless sky and the deepness of the ocean. It represents Vishnu's endless, all-pervading nature. And, blue is the color of sky or ether or akasha, and the throat chakra;the place of speech, hence chanting/intoning Vishnu's name is important.

Second; alot of the murtis of India, including Jaganatha, who is a form of Vishnu, the stone is black. Even Venkateshwara is depicted as black. I was told the black stone was auspicious and absorbs the power of the mantras.

I would like to see a non-ISKCON qoute from the Mahabharata that says that Krishna means "all-attractive".

"Commentators from different Vaisnava traditions on the Vishnu sahasranama offer explanations on a similar lines."...to my understanding is this is not true; Krishna means "Black" or "dark".

"Contemporary Vaisnava acaryas"; first, who are they? Or are they ISKCON gurus and spokesmen. The "Vaishnava" acaryas that I know do not say things like this.

"There are authoritative descriptions in the Brahma Samhita, Srimad-Bhagavatam, Bhagavad-gita and many of the Puranas"...the Brahma Samhita is an Gaudiya book; it was written around the 15th and 16th century. The Srimad-Bhagavatam is the Bhagavata purana and the Bhagavad-gita; both translations that are talked about are the ISKCON ones, which are mistranslated in many verses. Puranas; which puranas are being described?

I have personally sent an email to the Jagannatha temple to clairify whether Jagannatha is a form of Vishnu or Krishna.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection on you adding material on topic - ie svayam bhagavan, I think your tradition has a lot to offer on the subject. Please do not make it personal, it just does not look good, but even if your have some primary sources or web links I can include it in. Wikidās ॐ 21:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Broken Ref
Please see reference #73 - "Cite error: Invalid tag; no text was provided for refs named Singh2007" - if someone could fix this that would be great. Thanks. -- Shruti14 t c s 05:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added this reference and statement on second century B.C commentator Patanjali, as referring to "the follower of Vasudeva, God of gods." I think both article and this discussion can and should have more material on this understanding and meaning of the name Vasudeva/Vishnu/Krishna and when this concept originated. Wikidās ॐ 06:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Predating... Hindu Traditions"
"This concept has ancient roots, that is believed by some to have predated formation of some current major traditions of Hinduism."

I have currently removed the sentence and prefer that remain out of the article unless/until we can determine if/when/where it should be added in the article, address any contradicting (and/or supporting) theories, and source it properly. This should be a collective decision agreed on by the majority, if not all, of the editors working on the articles, and at least accepted by those who disagree. -- Shruti14 t c s 05:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI This could become an even more interesting discussion if we involve the dating of Hinduism, as there are many different views on the subject - but it is a very important discussion anyhow. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wanted to ask, does this pertain to the "Pre-Vaishnava" Vasudeva group that some editors have been pushing? If it is, I really think we need to get two or more viable references;preferably from Hindu or Indian scholars,to validate this claim...and scrutinize it throughly. Some editors have said that this scholar that wrote the book that states this Pre-Vaishnava Vasudeva group, is reputable...but, first; he might, because certain affiliations, might be pushing this "Krishna first" agenda. Second; Why is this book, the first time in may be 2,000 plus years, has this hypothesis ever been stated. No school trainned Indian pandit,in the past and in the present, that I know of, has ever mentioned it before. This is nowhere stated in Sastra, by Sadhus/Maha-Acharyas or the Hindu religious tradition within the last 2,000 years. More discussion is needed.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What's this article about ?
Before we proceed further with cleaning up and properly referencing this article, can we decide what is its focus and scope Currently this article appears to be a content (or even POV) fork of Krishna, and Svayam bhagavan just a coatrack title. The above issues are also relevant for the Bhagawat article, which again repeats content from here and Krishna, instead of focussing on the topic. Any comments or suggestion ? Abecedare (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If its topic is the concept of Svayam Bhagavan, all sections except the Lede and Meaning are irrelevant and should be simply deleted from here.
 * If it is "Scriptural sources on Krishna" as is the topic of discussion in the main Sources section, it should be renamed Krishna in Hindu scriptures and the tangential content on Svayam Bhagavan removed.
 * If it is Krishna in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, again the article should be renamed and most of the current content, which is not specific to the topic, should be deleted.
 * Broader discussion of the history of Vaishnavism (for example from Flood's book or Colas' article) belongs either at Vaishnavism or an article on History of Vaishnavism


 * The article was created after my suggestion to Wikidas that the main Krishna article needs to discuss all Hindu and Vaishnava views and that a sub-article was the only suitable option for an article on solely the Gaudiya interpretation of Krishna. Examples on which I based my suggestion were Ganesha outside Hinduism, Buddha in Hinduism and Jesus in Islam. In terms of the naming of this article, I believe that Krishna in Gaudiya Vaishnavism is the best choice. Svayam bhagavan appears to just be an epithet of Krishna, and Vishnu for that matter. It is no different from Gopala, Hari or Govinda, and is hence unclear. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 06:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article was created and written with "Krishna in Gaudiya Vaishnavism" content in mind; however svayam bhagavan is not the title to use for this topic, as "svayam bhagavan" can refer to more than just Krishna, but also to Dhanvantari, Vishnu, Vaikunthadeva, etc - and those are just some of the references in the Bhagavata Purana alone. "Svayam bhagavan" is a concept that may deserve an article, but the current text of the article is largely relevant for a "Krishna in Gaudiya Vaishnavism" article and not in this one. -- Shruti14 t c s 23:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this article should therefore be renamed as Krishna in Gaudiya Vaishnavism and Svayam bhagavan become a WP:Disambiguation page. See Mahadeva and Shankara on how names given to many gods/people have been sorted out. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 08:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While it was the original proposal by DaGizza, the conclusion of the discussion on the Krisha talk page was to create an article that will explain the differences of view for Krishna-first rather then Vishnu-first traditions. The traditions are including Gaudiya-vaishnavism, but also other traditions such as Nimbaraka and Rudra samparayas, as well as it seems Bhagavatas. The more research I do the more it grows. The only two lines of Krsna worshipers are Sri and Dvaita that maintain that Krsna is a full avatara.
 * This is largely theoretical issue, and not influencing the way he is worshiped. As per conclusion on Vaishnavism project page.
 * Thus page Krishna reflects what he is and he will not change from one tradition to another more then from one person to another.
 * Page Concept of Svayam Bhagavan in Gaudiya Vaishnavism is another option, that is not so good, as it is actually about something that is common to other groups to some degree.
 * I would run with original proposal and 'all sections except the Lede and Meaning are irrelevant and should be simply deleted from here.' can be done, if relevant information to this concept is incorporated into the relevant parts of the article. So I support Abecedare in his proposal. Wikidās ॐ 16:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Done Wikidās ॐ 21:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)