Talk:Svayam Bhagavan/Archive 3

NPOV & Grammar
The article is POV and has many grammar problems and spelling mistakes. -- Shruti14 t c s 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I will create the todo list any maybe we will have a few lucky editors to check it out. Thanks again. Your improvements are appreciated.

As to the Neutrality of the article. lets discuss it here. Wikidās ॐ
 * I have fixed some of the grammar mistakes for now. -- Shruti14 t c s 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to comment on red links when I realized that many of the "red links" were really misspellings of words - for example VedaS should have been Vedas. I have fixed some (if not most) but the rest need to be fixed. -- Shruti14 t c s 22:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, please note: The appropriate English spelling of Krishna is "Krishna", not "Krsna". This has also caused red links to surface in the article. -- Shruti14 t c s 22:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Wikidās ॐ 08:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
It isn't just bad grammar that harms this article - it's a lot of badly-written sentences, and in general, the article doesn't conform with WP:MOS as well. I've placed a cleanup tag on the article for this reason. -- Shruti14 t c s 22:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Its hectic and since a lot of edits recently I have lost track of it. Maybe in the discussion of the main issues as relevant to the topics, please suggest. Wikidās ॐ 08:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason of absence in Veda
"While Purusha is clearly mentioned in the Veda, the name Krishna is not. Vishnu is mentioned only a few times. Some scholars conclude that its related with the fact that the monotheism of Vaishnavas was formed later. From the perspective of Gaudiya Nimbaraka and Vallabhacharya, of course, there is a good reason for Krishna not being visible thought the media of the Veda. The reason is that He is known only thought devotion as Prabhupada said: "those who were not pure devotees of the Lord could not recognize Him or know His glories. Avajānānti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam[46]: He is always bewildering to the nondevotees, but He is always seen by the devotees by dint of their pure devotional service to Him."[47] Vedas appear to have had utilitarian purposes, described as karma – via the sacrifices as described in the Vedas, knowledge, jnana – in Upanishad; according to some Vaishnavas those with these motivations are not qualified to be considered for bhakti-marga or path of pure devotion. This position is disputed by Mimamsicas and is largely apologetic. "

This is completely original research. Also Prabhupadaji can not treated as an academic scholar and thus his views can not be the basis of theories on wikipedia.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will add references. And no your wrong, religious leaders do form a valid basis of Wikipedia sources in the particular area of thier area. Wikidās ॐ 13:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikidas, sorry to say you are wrong. See FA Ganesha, there are no quotes of religious leaders, just of academic scholars.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not think that this is policy of WP. You will have do better then that, there are millions of 'quotes' not by academic schollars. I will look for a compromise and get a few quotes from Ramanuja and Tattvavadis on the subject to have a balanced view. Do you have and quotes from scholars on this?

Please also refer to any WP:CITE section that restricts any types of quotations.

Wikidās ॐ 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked and there is no exclusion and the above statement that 'quotes' not by academic schollars can not be published is incorrect. Please do not get involved in disruptive editing. Thus the tag is removed. Discuss it here first before putting up again. Thanks. Wikidās ॐ 14:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But they do not explicitly say this is the reason of absence of Krishna from Vedas. Thus it is OR. The quotes are referenced but the conclusions are OR.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redtigerxyz, Im looking at some research on the topic. It appears that both points of view need to be presented and sourced. Will come back to it. Wikidās ॐ 19:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "From the perspective of Gaudiya Nimbaraka and Vallabhacharya, the reason for Krishna's obscurity in Veda is that He is known only through devotion.[4][original research?] "He is always bewildering to the nondevotees, but He is always seen by the devotees by dint of their pure devotional service to Him."[5] Some consider[original research?] that Vedas have specific purposes, described as karma – sacrifices as described in the Vedas, knowledge, jnana – in Upanishads, and are specifically dealing with three gunas[6]; and persons with these motivations are not ready for the path of pure devotion (bhakti-marga).[7][8][original research?]" is OR.
 * References may support the the quotations, but do not explicitly state the conclusions drawn in the text. Again primary sources used, not considered WP:RS as can be interpreted by readers in their way. Secondary sources are preferred.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When information directly stated in a source is used, it is not WP:OR, but if the information is not directly derived from the source, it becomes WP:OR and must be dealt with accordingly. That does not affect the reliability of the sources, but does affect the quality and reliability of the article and the information contained within it. -- Shruti14 t c s 01:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gopala Mantra
This is OR too as
 * Primary source used.
 * Even if translation is righ, it does not explicitly say "Therefore, Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead". This conclusion is OR.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will up look the sources, and will quote academics on it. In the meantime I would appreciate if you can mark relevant sections or paragraphs with  or  tags, as the article is quite big and majority of it is not OR and POV does not apply to the whole text. Thanks for looking at it. Will be back shortly.


 * The image is not required as its not about Hindu deity, its about a concept within 3 particular traditions of the Vaisnavas. Wikidās ॐ 13:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Wikidās about the removal of the image - the image is not needed. -- Shruti14 t c s 19:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Predating Other Hindu Traditions (Lead)
"This concept in has ancient roots that predate formation of current major Hindu traditions." based on  is WP:OR - the text simply states "the follower of Vasudeva, God of gods" and DOES NOT STATE ANYTHING about this concept having predated other "current major Hindu traditions". -- Shruti14 t c s 19:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC) I think this should be rephrased to reflect the fact that the sources pre-date formation of some schools such as Sri Sampradaya, but of course there are lot of schools that do fall under this category. Wikidās ॐ 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is arguable as to whether each group predated the other, as each group will disagree with the other point of view, and historical evidence could be interpreted by each group in either direction. I suggest that if that sentence remains in the article (which I'm debating whether it should) it shouldn't be in the lead, but somewhere else where that debate could more properly be discussed. -- Shruti14 t c s 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Shruti, I think it should be taken out please. It is too perposterous.71.165.55.253 (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yadu realization
"In accordance with puranic records its believed that Yadus were "scholars of the Vedas, they verified the Vedic hymns: eko devaḥ. sarva-bhūtādhivāsaḥ antaryāmī and vṛṣṇīnāṁ para-devatā. The Yadus, therefore, accepted Lord Kṛṣṇa as the Supersoul incarnated in their family, and not more than that." "

More WP:OR? Where does it say, even with the ref provided, that the "accepted Lord Kṛṣṇa as the Supersoul incarnated in their family..." by "verif[ying] the Vedic hymns: eko devaḥ. sarva-bhūtādhivāsaḥ antaryāmī and vṛṣṇīnāṁ para-devatā"? -- Shruti14 t c s 01:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The ref provided only refers to the Yadus as "all experienced devotees, learned and expert in psychic study. Over and above this, they were always with the Lord in all kinds of relaxations, and still they were only able to know Him as the one Supreme who dwells everywhere." - a direct quote.  What is posted above is, therefore, WP:OR. -- Shruti14 t c s 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Predating Modern Traditions?
This has been mentioned below, but in any case:

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

The above text, already cited by what multiple editors have determined to be a wrong reference to use, is now cited by the following quote from R. R. Singh's Bhakti And Philosophy : "Page 10: Panini, the fifth-century BC Sanskrit grammarian also refers to the term Vaasudevaka, explained by the second century B.C commentator Patanjali, as referring to "the follower of Vasudeva, God of gods."" I do not see how this cited ref refers specifically to, or directly supports, the article's text. To say so is probably WP:OR -- Shruti14 t c s 03:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have addressed it in the relevant section and by quoting almost to the word. The new references appear to support the above claim. Wikidās ॐ 08:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly relevant discussion
Editors on this page may be interested in reading/participating in the discussions on the following pages since they deal with appropriate referencing and other issues that are relevant to this article too: Abecedare (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hinduism notice board
 * Fringe theory noticeboard
 * Reliable sources noticeboard
 * The above relates to the discussions of some of my edits and use of WP:RS - some of the sources were not accepted as academic, and they will only be used to represent traditional or if you wish sectarian views within a particular denomination of Hinduism. Wikidās ॐ 11:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Voiced objections on Svayam bhagavan discussion page.
I just wanted to voice my consern with some ISKCON ideas on this discussion page, first;


 * In the “Not Neutral” section, the two paragraphs that states…“"From the perspective of Gaudiya Nimbaraka and Vallabhacharya…the reason for Krishna's obscurity in Veda is that He is known only through devotion”...this whole section, these two paragraphs and every sentence, I am sorry to say, but, is just preposterous, unfounded and non-Vedic. It is plain “brake-off group” speculation and concoction. This is the most out-landish statement I have ever came across in my decade of studying the Sastra or holy scriptures of India. I am actually shocked that people believe this or that it was even mentioned. I will be senting these unfounded statements to some school trainned pundits, brahmanas and swami’s in Vaishnavism and Shavitism. It is mind-blowing; this is an absolute cult belief. I am shocked and dumb-founded right now by these questionable speculative statements.


 * In the “Predating Other Hindu Traditions (Lead)” section; statements like….”This concept in has ancient roots that predate formation of current major Hindu traditions” and “the sources pre-date formation of some schools such as Sri Sampradaya”…again, are totally unfounded, speculative, concocted, preposterous and out-landish. The ISKCON/Gaudiya group and their beliefs started in the 1500’s…period. Just by Wikipedia imformation, that The Sri Sampradayam existed first. Vasudeva is a name of Vishnu/Narayana. I have been studying the scriptures for ten years, and I have NEVER heard of this supposed Vasudeva/Krishna pre-Hindu, pre-Vaishnava group..it is speculation and a fantasy. Period.


 * In the “Yadu realization” section …again, this whole section is total absolute concoction, speculation and mis-translation of scripture. This is just a “brake-off” group fantasy. Again, this section is unfounded.


 * In the “References” section….the scriptures that the ISKCON people use are heavily mistranslated and heavily bias towards the ISKCON/Gaudiya group’s speculative beliefs.


 * In the “Lead” section….it states; “In the above-mentioned Vaishnava traditions, Krishna worship and understanding as the Supreme is believed to have occurred since the existence of the creatures began.”   Before the advent of the Vaishnava schism during 1200’s to 1600’s (which the Gaudiyas/ISKCON had their start), within Vaishnavism, Vishnu/Narayana is the first, according to scripture, saints and tradition. Again, this is pure speculation, concoction and totally unfounded. This is a “brake-off” group belief.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see reference below. Please also see WP:NOT

"Early Vaishnava worship focuses on three deities who become fused together, namely Vasudeva-Krishna, Krishna-Gopala and Narayana, who in turn all become identified with Vishnu. Put simply, Vasudeva-Krishna and Krishna-Gopala were worshiped by groups generally refered to as Bhagavatas, while Narayana was worshipped by the Pancaratra sect."

Wikidās ॐ 21:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Everyone is not accepting your perposterous references. Your making youself look bad. We have debated this obsurd notion on other pages. No one is taking you seriously. Your belief and qoute is against the Hindu scriptures and history. This qoute is perposterous.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)?


 * Comment Gavin Flood is far from a perposterous reference! This is an arguement with no grounding. Gavin Flood has been the Executive Director of the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. Gavin Flood's statements, in his academic writings, do give some credit to Wikidas' statements. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While Gavin Flood is certainly recognized as a notable and respectable academic, this particular point that Flood has made is a disputed one not universally accepted by all academics and scholars. I do not think all of Flood's points are disputed, but certainly this particular one is. -- Shruti14 t c s 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please show sources which dispute Gavin Floods's statements, I do not know of any reliable sources that address his comments that you have stated are disputed. Until shown to be unduely POV, I believe Gavin Flood's research and publications must be appreciated as a notable academic perspective concerning the discussion above - and thus worthy of being included in this discussion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick search provided, for example, this ISKCON reference that acknowledges that Vaishnavism is old (mentioning the Vaishnava belief that it has been present for many years) but then goes on to acknowledge that "Worship of Krishna dates back at least 5,000 years, though Western scholars suggest it emerged more recently." This contradicts the belief in Krishna worship having predated modern Vaishnava traditions (which the source had previously been used to cite). I will look for more (and better) sources - this was just one of the first that came up in a quick search. -- Shruti14 t c s 03:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Above, I wasn't referring to his views as disputed, but rather the way they were presented in the article as "predating modern Hindu traditions" - Flood's quote was previously used to cite this statement. -- Shruti14 t c s 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just want to understant you correctly; what is being discussed as "predating modern Hindu traditions"? Modern Hindu traditions can be interpreted to be Puranic Hinduism. Regardless of what ISKCON believes, there are various scholarly views as to the formation of Vaishnavism and the place of Krishna, Narayana, Vasudeva-Krishna, Krishna-Gopala etc. play in this formation. These theories should be allowed space in the article, especially if they are from respecible scholars. This is a grey area, I think that this ambivalence should be represented in the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I had removed it, but the lead had previously mentioned that the belief in Krishna as svayam bhagavan "predated current modern Hindu traditions" and cited the above as a source. The source had no relevance to the supposed "predating" of belief of Krishna as svayam bhagavan.  On the other hand, I completely agree that all relevant viewpoints, including ISKCON as well as more "mainstream" traditional groups, should have their viewpoints represented.  The offending text, which has now been removed, specifically stated that the belief in Krishna as svayam bhagavan predated other beliefs, a belief not accepted by other sources I have found and certainly not supported by the above-mentioned source by Flood that was used to cite the information.  -- Shruti14 t c s 05:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Shruti14 for clearing that up for me. To be specific, I do believe though that in Flood's account, Krishna predates Vaishnavism. As he states on page 118 of his text Introduction to Hinduism, "The independent cults of Vasudeva-Krishna, Krishna-Gopala, and Narayana became merged in Vaishnavism, itself a term used to encompass a number of distinct traditions." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wanted to ask,this pertains to the "Pre-Vaishnava" Vasudeva group that some editors have been pushing. 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) 18:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The same issues have been raised, around the time of Max Muller, regarding the reliability of certain comparatively new ideas about Judeo-Christian beliefs. Part of the reason they had not been raised before in that situation was that no one had every really dared to question those fundamental assumptions before. The same might be the case here. The source seems to be reputable enough today, and that's what counts. John Carter (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations need to be checked
I have tagged this article, since several citations added by User:Wikidas do not support the statements they are atteched to. Also see discussion at WP:FTN. Abecedare (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Its a good idea to check. Since you started your follow ups I have started to include actual quotes in the ref.

The topic is a serious one. There is a major lack of references on most of Vaishnavate and Vaidic pages. Major problem and lots of POV.

Here is one on the svayam bhagavan discussion. Its not RS but is interesting to note.

Dr. Sharma cites a reference from the Visnu Purana, which he and others of his stamp interpret to mean that Krsna is an incarnation of the hair (kesa) of Narayana. Therefore, Dr. Sharma reasons, why should we accept Krsna as svayam bhagavan? There are other so-called references to Krsna being an incarnation of the hair of Narayana as well. Yet all of the verses said to describe Krsna asa black hair and Balarama as a white hair are misunderstood by foolish commentators. Where in any scripture has the Lord been describe as having white hair? He has black hair. If he drew from his head a black and white hiar as they misconstrue, from where did the gray hair come? The Lord is eternally youthful. His hairs do not turn gray over time. Sridhara Svami refutes this foolish idea by explaining that the word kesau in the Visnu Purana sloka is used in the sense of splendor. The complexions of Krsna and Balarama are thus being described as beautiful or splendorous. The Visnu Purana states: ujjaharatmanah kesau. Sridhara Svami explains that this phrase properly understood means "The Lord in his splendid origianl forms as Balarama and Krsna relieved the burden of the earth." The misunderstanding of the word kesau as hair is further defeated by the explanation of Vopadeva Gosvami in his Muktaphala-tika. Vopadeva states that kesau means ka (blissful) and isau (the two personalities). A comprehensive refutation of the misunderstanding of the so-called kesa avatara is presented by Srila Rupa Gosvami in his Laghu-Bhagavatamrta, verses 156-164, in the chapter entitled Krsnamrta. Rupa Gosvami's opinion is also supported by the commentary of Baladeva Vidyabhusana, who was originally initiated into the Madhva sampradaya.

Thanks for your watchful eye Abecedareji. Wikidās ॐ 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't need to thank for catching your errors (or intentional misrepresentations); you should stop the disruption instead - before you face blocks or probations.
 * Here is an example: Can you explain how the Gavin Flood's quote supports the statement, "This concept has ancient roots, that is believed by some to have predated formation of some current major traditions of Hinduism." ? I don't know how quoting from an unreliable website (gosai.com) helps the discussion. Abecedare (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Very simple. It describes origins of pancaratric traditions of vaishnavism, its a simple reference that reinforces the statement and is a secondary to the main reference re Panini. Pancaratric traditions are major traditions of current Hinduism. Im surprised you can not understand that, I guess I better rephrase it. Wikidās ॐ 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reinforce the statement ?! I think you should really read WP:V. Abecedare (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This person doesnt know what he is saying, he is all-mixed up...I am sorry to say. He does know if he coming or going! What is funny, is his arrogance in his ignorance.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment  Gavin Flood has been the Executive Director of the  Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. Gavin Flood's statements, in his academic writings, do give some credit to Wikidas' statements. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Another academic source from Gavin Flood is an article he published in ISKCON Communications Journal titled Hinduism,Vaisnavism And ISKCON: Authentic Traditions Or Scholarly Constructions?. This article does not directly address the article at hand, but it does offer some academic perspective on the discussion above from a notable Hindu Studies scholar. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ism, I completely agree with you that Flood is a very good reference and have myself used on on several Hinduism related pages. Wikidas added it to this article to support the following statements:
 * "This concept has ancient roots, that is believed by some to have predated formation of some current major traditions of Hinduism."

using the quote,
 * "Early Vaishnava worship focuses on three deities ... Pancaratra sect."

My question is: does the quote support (i.e., verify; not reinforce etc) the above statement ? The larger point I am trying to make is that the article content should be written/modified to reflect reliable sources (such as Flood's book); it is not proper to simply write down our POV and then just hang references willy-nilly. Wouldn't you agree ? (PS: There is also the issue that the statement in the article is hardly informative because it is not clear what "this concept" refers to, and due to the weasel qualifiers "believed by some (?)", "some (?) current (?) major (?) traditions"; but right now I am more concerned with misrepresentation of sources than crisp writing - since the latter is not a sign of editorial misconduct on wikiepdia.)  Abecedare (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that these sources should not be used as vehicles for POV. I hope that editors can agree on a NPOV inclusion of this information through the discussion here. If mentioned and quoted correctly these sources could help edify some different perspectives and ideas concerning the creation, history and (important for the discussion at hand) the formation of Vaishnavism. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Abecedare that the reference does not support the text in the article. I recommend a removal of the sentence until and unless we can find a verifiable and reliable source than can support this statement.  The point is completely arguable and debatable, and until we can find some evidence that this view is supported, it doesn't make much sense to keep the statement.  I have done some light searching, and have yet to find any such evidence. -- Shruti14 t c s 03:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The text in the article in not set in stone. What should be consided is the various notable perspectives. Aside from perspectives from within the religous communities under discussion, outside scholars also offer valid perspectives. In this case, Gavin Flood's research and statements concerning the formation of Vaishnavism are very appropriate and worthy of having some place in the article. Thanks. Also, I still do not believe you have addressed how his views are "disputed." Please exlain. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't referring to his views as disputed, but rather the way they were presented in the article as "predating modern Hindu traditions" - Flood's quote was previously used to cite this statement. -- Shruti14 t c s 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Same Text, New Ref
"This concept has ancient roots, that is believed by some to have predated formation of some current major traditions of Hinduism. "

The above text, already cited by what multiple editors have determined to be a wrong reference to use, is now cited by the following quote from R. R. Singh's Bhakti And Philosophy : "Page 10: Panini, the fifth-century BC Sanskrit grammarian also refers to the term Vaasudevaka, explained by the second century B.C commentator Patanjali, as referring to "the follower of Vasudeva, God of gods."" I do not see how this cited ref refers specifically to, or directly supports, the article's text. -- Shruti14 t c s 03:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "how his views are disputed"...The fact that he is a noted scholar is not being disputed. The hypothesis of this "Pre-Vaishnava" Vasudeva cult IS. First; what are his affiliations, is there a group agenda involved with this statement/hypothesis? Second; Why hasnt any school trainned Indian born scholar, Maha-acharya, Sadhus and etc. within the last 2,000 plus years have MENTIONED this. Where is it in Sastra or the Hindu tradition? Where is this notion mentioned in any Indian history books? This is a totally NEW idea that has surfaced. In the past when men like Patanjali said "the follower of Vasudeva, God of gods"...he is talking about Vishnu/Narayana! I have been studying the sastra and indian history for awhile, nowhere is this hypothesis mentioned. This a totally WESTERN contrived hypothesis. I'll beleive it when a noted, school trainned, Vedically trainned scholar,who does not have any questionable affiliations says it is so. And, why hasnt any one else; whether Indian or Western, come up with the same "proof"?Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We have reworded this and moved to an appropriate place in the article. It think it works better that way. Wikidās ॐ 11:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Single POV
Many sections (for example, "The Bhakti" section) provide only a Gaudiya (and similar) perspective, with citations to Gaudiya-specific texts (such as the Chaitanya Charitamrita) without ever explicitly stating that the view is Gaudiya-specific. This provides an unbalanced view that leads others who read the article to believe that the view(s) are shared by ALL Vaishnavas, when in fact they are not. They are, therefore, POV. -- Shruti14 t c s 03:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As we have seen in the Krishna article, various perspectives from various communities should be respresented in the article. If you know of others, it would enrich the articles to add such information and sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely that multiple perspectives need to be added and will do my best to add them so that the article can provide a more neutral, balanced, comprehensive perspective on the subject. -- Shruti14 t c s 04:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was looking for a reference fro the Sri Vaiṣṇava perspective, but I have failed to get any reliable sources. I only got srirangasri blog/mailist references from archives. I suggest to use them or should we use only very reliable references? Anyway its just to illustrate a different perspective and to remove single POV from the article. Anyone has any very good links for it?  Wikidās ॐ 15:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Govinda Ramanuja dasa, I have created a separate section where I have put all your unreferenced second POV comments. They need to be sourced in order to be retained in the article. Please source or remove if you do not feel they are relevant.


 * Arguments against

The following are some standard objections to the Svayam bhagavan concept from other traditions within larger Hinduism or more specifically Vishnuism:


 * From Vedic creationist point of view, or as it is commonly accepted within Hinduism, it is Vishnu or Narayana who is the creator or origin of this world, Krishna is not and even if as Svayam bhagavan is equal in all respects he is not at the origin.
 * Bhagavatam that stays at the core of Svayam bhagavan term supporting supremacy of Krishna, as well as other scriptures, such as Vaishnava Upanishads, are a later creation of c.16 century and do not form a part of the original Veda.


 * The application of the term Svayam bhagavan and the category of svayaṁ-rūpa is a new Gaudiya Vaishnava view and is generally not upheld in any previous Vaishnava traditions and within greater Hinduism.

The tags can be removed after a supporting reference or references is found. Wikidās ॐ 11:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Evidence from Rig Veda and Bhagavata Purana introduction" Section
"Evidence based on the Rig Veda is derived from the Brahma gayatri mantra. The essential nature of this mantra is that even it is contained in the original Veda, that Vaishnavas conclude was mainly meant for the actions that prescribed under the path of karma, or fruitive, its significance is universal to the Vedic tradition, and its this mantra that is forming the basis of the Bhagavatam. In fact the correlation between first verse of the Bhagavatam. The Brahma gayatri found in Rg Veda 3.62.10 is one of the corner stones of Jiva Goswami presentation and all other major Vashnava traditions. yantradhikrtya gayatrim is Bhagavata. That is the purpose of Bhagavata and first verse of the Bhagavata is the commentary on the Brahma gayatri.

What exactly is this section trying to say (prove? Why the word "evidence"?) with respect to the concept of "svayam bhagavan"? Also, it is badly written grammatically as an encyclopedic article. -- Shruti14 t c s 04:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This has also been addressed below as having a misrepresented citation. -- Shruti14 t c s 05:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I will be working a bit more to find supporting research. At the moment I do not have a reliable sources for it and the section is removed. Wikidās ॐ 11:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Further examples of irrelevant or misreprepresented citations

 * Statement: Evidence based on the Rig Veda is derived from the Brahma gayatri mantra. The essential nature of this mantra is that even it is contained in the original Veda, that Vaishnavas conclude was mainly meant for the actions that prescribed under the path of karma, or fruitive
 * Citation: "the development of these material bodies is called karma, or fruitive activities"
 * Comment: The paper is basically a comparison of different English translations of passages from Gita. The cited passage appears as the Bhaktivedanta translation of BG8.3, and the complete passage is "The Supreme Personality of Godhead replied: The indestructible, transcendental living entity is called Brahman, and his eternal nature is called the self. And action pertaining to the development of these material bodies is called karma, or fruitive activities."
 * It has nothing to do with "Gayatri Mantra" or "Rigveda", as far as I can see.


 * Statement: While some sampradyas considers moksa to be the ultimate goal, majority of Bhagavatas accept prayer Uddhava where he states the basis of the understanding, that bhakti is above and is superior to even moksa.
 * Citation:
 * Comment: I looked through the 37 mentions of bhakti and 3 mentions of moksha in the article and while it talks about bhakti being considered superior to Vedic rituals, I didn't find any basis for "bhakti is above and is superior to even moksa." No mention of Uddhava either.


 * Statement: "The Sanskrit term svayam bhagavan ( in IAST) is sometimes translated as the Original Personality of Godhead."
 * Citation: "Krishna is the primeval Lord, the original Personality of Godhead, so He can expand Himself into unlimited forms with all potencies." page 161
 * Comment: Neither the quote, nor Page 161 (or adjoining pages) even mention Svayam Bhagavan. To be fair, page 510, does contain the statement, "However, as explained, krishnas tu bhagavan svayam, Lord Sri Krishna is the original Supreme Personality of Godhead, the source of all other expansions or avatar", which appears to be an interpretation or commentary, rather than a translation - but that is at least arguable. Note also that Knapp is an extremely fringe-y source, as his deleted bio on wikipedia attested.


 * Statement: "Bhakti by definition of Vashnavas is confined to one deity of Krishna,"
 * Citation: "Chaitanya Charitamrita Madhya 8.138 puruṣa, yoṣit, kibā sthāvara-jaṅgama sarva-cittākarṣaka, sākṣāt manmatha-madana “The very name Kṛṣṇa means that He attracts even Cupid. He is therefore attractive to everyone—male and female, moving and inert living entities. Indeed, Kṛṣṇa is known as the all-attractive one."
 * Comment: Passage does not even mention bhakti, let alone define it.

This is just a random, rather than exhaustive survey. Several of these and other statement with dubious citations have possibly been also added to many other wikipedia pages, including Bhagavata, Vishnu, Krishna, Bhakti, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Vaishnavism. I have pointed out similar problems with Wikidas' references on the Krishna page here Abecedare (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the trouble to find these. If there is a more appropriate source, it should be cited instead, and if not, the statements should be deleted/reworded as necessary.  On a related note: there is an "invalid citation" that does not seem to work - please fix! -- Shruti14 t c s 05:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Shruti, I should clarify that I am currently overlooking issues of grammar, tone, or even whether the content is "correct", UNDUE or NPOV. My only concern at the moment is whether the references that are included, in fact, support the statement or not.
 * As I stated on Talk:Krishna, misrepresenting sources is even worse than simply not providing sources, writing ungrammatically or with the POV - because in the former case the reader and other editors are fooled into thinking that the statements are well supported and have no cues to their unreliability
 * Attributing content to sources correctly is a matter of basic intellectual honesty and is taken seriously on wikipedia. For example, User:PHG was sanctioned by wikipedia's arbitration committee for repeatedly misrepresenting sources. Hopefully we won't have to go down that path.
 * I think as a first step we need to remove all citations from the article unless we have independently verified them. That way we will know where we stand and what statements need sources and can be sourced. We may have to take similar steps on other articles with regards to sources added by User:Wikidas - this, of course, is a tremendous amount of unnecessary drudge-work, but I don't see how we can avoid it. Anyone have any other suggestions ? Abecedare (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Larson and Jaiswal have been mis-cited for incoherent rubbish. Knapp is a kook. And the page on Madhyalila.8.138 has neither the quoted Sanskrit(what is kibā? probably a typo) nor its supposed translation, which in turn is tendentious, as the passage is about Manmatha-Madana, which are epithets of Krishna, but not "the very name". This is a very disturbing pattern. Wikidas will have to shape up. rudra (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's Madhya.8.139 for the quote and its "translation", but the statement in question is still not sourced. rudra (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note the deleted reply to Abecedare - I hope the only reason to delete it was logistics. Wikidās ॐ 08:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you need not "hope" or speculate on the reasons for deletion; they were explained on your talk page and you were asked not to intersperse your comments within other users, four days back too. More to the point, if you still don't appreciate why the above examples of referencing are inappropriate unacceptable, please consider getting a wikipedia mentor, becaase currently you are on the path of exhausting the community patience. Abecedare (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Wikidās ॐ 11:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Sources" section
I just wanted to discuss some things within the “Sources” section. It states that “Some principle Upanishads” support the views...The Upanishad that was quoted is The Gopala-tapani Upanishad, which is not a principle Upanishad and according to even Wikipedia sources was written in the 1600’s (the Krishna Upanishad is a latter day book also). It is a latter-day book and not a “Principle” Upanishad, like the Katha and etc. I think that the word “principle” should be deleted or phrased differently. It also states “many of the Puranas”….which Puranas? And, are they a part of the Sattvic Puranas. “one of the earliest commentaries on the Vendanta Sutras appear to support views…”, I have studied the Vedanta Sutras and it states nothing that would prove the first paragraph of this section to my memory, if there are quotes, it is probably misquoted. This needs to be looked into, with scrutiny. And, at the bottom paragraph, “Other Vedic sources such as the Rig Veda and Panini's works also support references to the worship of Krishna as the object of Bhakti.[citation needed]” …The Rig Veda states nothing to support this notion (others and myself have stated many times about the word and any references of “Krishna” in the Rig Veda), this is an absolutely unfounded statement. I would like to see the quotes from Panini’s work to prove this statement, if so; again, they are probably misquoted. I am not attacking any one, being hostile or disruptive, but, I think that this whole paragraph and other need to be changed. I think that my objections are well founded and backed by Sastra, sadhus and Indian history. Again, I am not being disruptive or attacking, but, a lot of sections and a lot of what has been written in article/page is just plain unfounded and “group”belief (even though that this section is for only the Gaudiya group). I would like to see what other think about what I have written and pointed out.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you please use citations for your edits. It appears that some of your edits are unfounded, while you at the same time quite good in taking out part that are unreferenced, it appears that ALL your edits are unreferenced. Wikidās ॐ 21:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And, you use non-sensical references, as affirmed by many. What can I say?Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits on Svayam Bhagavan page
Dear everyone, I just wanted to let everyone know that I did some edits on the page. I tried to make them as non-bias,factual and inclusive as I could. If I, in any way, wrote any thing or did any thing wrong, please let me know. I tried to be as non-bias and factual as possible. Please let me know what you think.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The edits seems to be fine, I can see you tried to be non-bias and I know it could be hard for you. I wish every page in Vaishnavism project got as much input! Wikidās ॐ 15:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty hard trying not to be non-bias, because of the massive errors,unfounded statements,incoherent and misplaced ideas, fantastic bias notions on this article. I am not the only one who has noticed this. This article needs major re-writing.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate if you can be a bit more grounded and instead of flying accusations, provide a few references, I would even accept some primary references, however normally it should be secondary. Wikidās ॐ 21:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to start a fight,but,as confirmed by almost all editors; the references that you use are not reliable, accusations that you mention are confirmed by every one. You keep on trying to make this page bias with an ISKCON slant...just by looking at your edit changes that I have made. I am trying to make this article non-bias and Factual, with by your information that have been putting on...it isnt. If we must, let us BOTH take this to an Admin like DaGizza or Abacadare, Shruti14, Redtiger and dc, and let THEM decide what is non-bias and factual.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I beleive that there is a good use of editors looking at the article, I however not sure if you can contain your personal bias, after all you were a Gaudia convert just a year ago, so you may have some personal issues to resolve. Wikidās ॐ 08:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, personal issues with sect spin-off beliefs that not Vedic and editors trying to push these strange non-vedic notions, And, I left in 2005, this is the third time or more that have said some that you dont know what you are talking about.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on terms used
I have edited the word "monotheistic" from out of the page. Vaishnavism was definitely "monotheistic" before the advent of the Gaudiya group. And, using it in a way to suggest that Vaishnavism before the 12th through 17th centuries was NOT Monotheistic is false. Some where on the article; it states some thing to the effect " Vasudeva... Garuda standard or insignia...God of gods", first,...the "Garuda Standard or insignia" is the insignia of VISHNU/Narayana. Vasudeva is a name for Vishnu/Narayana.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you please refrain from attacks on the personal or ideological level. Above is POV statement that can be part of the views but please source your statements, as far as I see, it may refer to both Vishnu and Krishna-Vasudeva. Wikidās ॐ 08:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to take your own advice. This statement is NOT POV.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on changes

 * First "traditional"; what does wikidas mean by "traditional" Gaudiya Vaishnavism? When refering to "traditional", it usually means an older group that is following the original Vedas, main upanishads, original Vedic traditions,rituals, procedures and customs. Like the Smarta Shivites or the Sri and Brahma(Madhvacharyas) Sampradayams. How are pre-ISKCON Gaudiya Vaishnavism traditional? I want to contest the use of "traditional". Second; I would like to discuss and contest strongly the historical section. I tried to edit this section with a more un-bias and factual manner. It is only this one scholar, who has written things for ISKCON that is being harped about. Thirdly, it must be stated, I wrote in many sections, stressing "Greater Hinduism and previous Vaishnava groups", pointing out that the Svayam bhagavan is on upheld outside of certain groups, this was taken out by wikidas...I put it back in. I really would like to discuss this.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Factual manner means you should refer to sources. On the above suggestions I currently go literary on the secondary sources only. This statement of yours shows that you are not NPOV. Wikidās ॐ 08:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Your references have been proven MANY times to be non-sense and a farce, and this shows that you do have a group agenda.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Current lead
I felt that this information should be placed elsewhere. Does this really belong in the lead? -- Shruti14 t c s 22:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In the above-mentioned Vaishnava traditions, Krishna worship and understanding as the Supreme is believed to have occurred since the existence of the creatures began. Brahma was believed to be the first Vaishnava. Shiva Mahadeva is also believed to be an early Vaishnava. The ancient Prajapaties are all believed to be Vaishnavas. Narada who is the born child of Brahma, is a Vaishnava. The pure monotheistic Vaishnava religion is believed to have begun with the beginning of history. In " the recent times man arrived once again at the instinctive monotheism of the Aryans and Vaishnavas." Associated Vedanta philosophy - Achintya Bheda Abheda


 * I have removed it for now. It's awkward, only loosely relevant, and clearly doesn't belong in the lead of this article.  Perhaps (if it belongs in the article at all) it should be moved elsewhere - for now the material remains here on the talk page in case it should be readded later. -- Shruti14 t c s 18:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also rearranged a few of the sentences so that they make more sense in style, grammar, and order. -- Shruti14 t c s 19:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are "Currently..." and "At the present date..." used to describe the limited belief in the concept? What is this trying to imply? If it's trying to imply that in the future, the concept will be followed by most or all in the religion, that is POV.  If not, it makes no sense, and I see no purpose for this wording.  I have removed them from the article. -- Shruti14 t c s 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I should look at it. I think there are better ways to phrase it without going into POV. "At the present date..." does smell as a limited belief.
 * Wikidās ॐ 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

For the "Meaning" section and in the interest of keeping a balanced, WP:NPOV view of the term, I have rephrased the lead's beginning slightly:

"Svayam bhagavan ( in IAST) is a Sanskrit term referring to the original form of Bhagavan, the monotheistic God in Hinduism. It is often used to refer to Krishna ..."

Hope the new lead is acceptable. -- Shruti14 t c s 03:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please comment on the current lead as it stands. All references have been checked and appear to be WP:RS. If you have any issues on them, please raise here or on the relevant board.

Svayam bhagavan ( in IAST) is a Sanskrit term referring to the original form of Bhagavan, the monotheistic God in Hinduism. It is often used to refer to Krishna being accepted across certain groups or Sampradayas of Vaishnavism as the source of all avatars, in the conception of Bhagavan. The term has also been used to refer to other forms of Krishna or Vishnu within the context of religious texts such as the Bhagavata Purana, as well as by other sects of Vaishnavism. A Gupta period research concerning that makes a clear mention of Vasudeva as the exclusive object of worship of a group of people, who are referred as bhagavatas.

Within contemporary and historical Hinduism, Krishna is perceived from a variety of perspectives. Referring to Krishna, the concept is specific to certain Vaishnava groups such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the Vallabha Sampradaya, and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, where Krishna is accepted to be the source of all other avatars including Vishnu. A distinguishing feature of the Vaishnava teachings is that God, Krishna or Vishnu, is a real person and His creation is also real. This concept is

Patanjali (2nd century BC) is referring to the devotee as "the follower of Vasudeva, God of gods." Arjuna and Vasudeva are sometimes referred as objects of worship in early texts, and according to some scholars there is a further reference to Vasudeva-Krishna in ancient indeginous texts (Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jain)


 * Any suggestions as to the review of it? Im open to all sourced additions and POV free comments, please bear in mind the fact that this is article in regard of a particular traditions, such as Gaudiya, Vallabha and Bhagavata in general, Its not about other views however they are addressed in it. Wikidās ॐ 08:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I contest and disagree with every thing you are trying to say. I have already alerted Abadacare, Shruti14, Redtiger, DaGizza and others of your shananagans. let them review your bias edits, fanatistic-outlandish claims, unsound references to this article and others that you have tainted. The time that you have costed other editors re-doing your edits, checking your references and outlandish notion is too much. This has to stop. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - The third paragraph just shouldn't be there, in the lead, for a number of reasons. It is awkwardly placed and is somewhat nonsensical to be placed in the lead rather than in the main article.  See WP:LEAD: "The lead serves a dual role both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic."  A reference to Patanjali would serve neither purpose in the lead.  The wording of the first sentence, "Patanjali (2nd century BC) is referring to the devotee as..." is badly worded.  (Patanjali is referring to what devotee?  And where is he referring to the devotee?  The source is given but the quote is never mentioned in the paragraph, leading the reader into confusion about what the sentence is talking about.)  These are just the problems in the first part of the paragraph. -- Shruti14 t c s 01:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the first sentence of the third paragraph for now - it should either be placed elsewhere or nowhere at all, as well as be reworded to make sense. -- Shruti14 t c s 02:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It should really go to the other section as you pointed out. Wikidās ॐ 07:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

After edits by Shruti and Juthani I think current lead as it stands is quite good. Perhaps an explanation of the actual concept could be a bit more transparent or clear, to make sure its easy to understand what this article is all about. Sections of the lead that are not appropriate can be replaced with more generic and easy to understand wording, after all its a 'normal person' and not just a scholar or student who will read it. I will try to look at it later in the light of making it a bit simpler and will propose something on this talk page. Wikidās ॐ 08:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the lead is improving now, but that the explanation of the concept could be more lucid. However, I'm also looking at the end of the lead, where it states:
 * This belief is primerly supported by the verse 1.3.28 of the Bhagavata Purana:


 * It's atypical to insert a quote directly into the lead, and I think that this would be better-suited for a place elsewhere in the article. -- Shruti14 t c s 15:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Meaning

 * This section as it stands appears to be quite balanced. I suggest that there is not POV in this particular section. Im not sure what you think?

The Sanskrit term svayam bhagavan ( in IAST) is sometimes translated as the Original Personality of Godhead. Where as according to Gaudiya Vaishnava specific point of view the term Supreme Personality of Godhead or Supreme God may also apply to the other, non-different, forms of Krishna or Vishnu.

Earlier commentators such as Madhva translates "Svayam bhagavan" as "he who has bhagavatta", meaning, "he who has the quality of possessing all qualities". , whereas some academics translate it simply as "the Lord Himself".


 * Any comments on this page are very welcome. I personally think Kim Knotts reference may be removed or changed to another relevant quote as it may not be relevant. Wikidās ॐ 08:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I contest and disagree with every thing you are trying to say. I have already alerted Abadacare, Shruti14, Redtiger, DaGizza and others of your shananagans. let them review your bias edits, fanatistic-outlandish claims, unsound references to this article and others that you have tainted. The time that you have costed other editors re-doing your edits, checking your references and outlandish notion is too much. This has to stop. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For NPOV, I would change the first sentence "The Sanskrit term svayam bhagavan ( in IAST) has translated in multiple ways". "Original Personality of Godhead" and "Supreme Personality of Godhead" are terms used within ISKCON and rarely outside of the sect, and the current wording implies that this is the primary usage of the term in most sects.  The rest of this section seems fine for the most part, although it may be better to be more specific about who the "academics" who "translate it simply as 'the Lord'" are (in the last sentence) as well as to mention that the literal meaning is "The Lord Himself". -- Shruti14 t c s 01:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made the change and also fixed some minor grammar problems. -- Shruti14 t c s 03:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I might suggest changing it to something like (this is not a finalized proposal) "Svayam bhagavan is a Sanskrit theological term. It has been translated in various ways into English. ..." It would be useful to note which traditions use the phrase most frequently, to help ensure that the existing lead content emphasizing Krishna is reflective of due weight. If it isn't, then the references in the lead to Krishna could be moved in a separate section on Krishna as svayam bhagavan, and include other sections on other avatars as svayam bhagavan; such sections do not yet seem to exist, but might be the most reasonable way of organizing the article. The last sentence/paragraph of the lead is almost certainly removable, as I believe that material is already included elsewhere. I also question, although I can't be sure, inclusion of sections of Sanskrit text in the English language wikipedia, as very few people reading this article will actually know a single word in those sections, including me. For all I know, there might be in it a very rude statement about the mother of the person reading the article; it doesn't really enhance the understanding of the subject at all. I could be wrong, of course. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

reply Done Wikidās ॐ 11:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on sources

 * Obviously this should refer to the sources of the concept. It should also address the issues in relation to other groups views.


 * Lead in to the section appears to be balanced, however there is a lot of discussion and POV comments that needs a review in the relevants sections. I suggest making it shorter to save the valuable time of the editors. Some POV comments are yet to be removed. Wikidās ॐ

The Vallabha Sampradaya, the Nimbarka Sampradaya, and the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, who are followers of Caitanya Mahaprabhu use Gopala Tapani Upanishad, verses from some of the Puranas and their commentaries on the Vedanta Sutras to support their view that Krishna is Svayam bhagavan. This was summarized by the 16th century author Jiva Goswami in some of his works such as Krsna-sandarbha.

In the Hindu epic Mahābhārata, the sixth book or chapter Bhishma Parva constitutes the Bhagavad Gita, which Krishna himself teaches the warrior Arjuna the different processes of Yoga, ultimately culminating in devotional surrender to Himself as Svayam bhagavan.

Comparision of views
The exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu, particularly regarding which is "primary" to the other, is one of the most frequently debated issues in the Vaishnava branch of Hinduism. Some hindu systems, Pancaratra in particular, refer to Vasudeva-Krishna, (as Krishna son of Vasudeva) as the source of all or as the same the ultimate reality, non-distinct from Vasudeva and other manifestations. Having a hundred-fold radiance of fire from whom all other forms of Purusha, Achuta and Satya emanate. In Ramanuja's and some other Hindu systems Sriman Narayana in Vaikuntha is the highest form, and they disagree with the notion that Sri Krishna is the supreme form of Brahman (Bhagavan Svayam). According to views held within the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, that are similar to those of there is a classification of the divinity of original or avatara features, which is sometimes summarized in three categories. This notion was also propounded by Caitanya Mahaprabhu who it is believed to have separated the following categories:


 * 1) svayam-rupam (bhagavan svayam),
 * 2) tad-ekatma rupam
 * 3) avesa

According to a 16th century biography, when Chaitanya first met Sanatana Goswami, he made sure that the principle of Krishna being the svayam bhagavan and the overview of the theory of avatara is transmitted in detail. Some Gaudiya concluded that is of a critical importance. To Hinduism in general and Vaishnava sampradayas previous to Caitanya and Vallabhacarya, Krishna is often considered to be an avatara of Vishnu, or a full avatara of Narayana, as the case with Madhva. This exclusive definition of avatara was presented differently to Sanatana Goswami based on Gaudiya interpretations of the Upanishads and specifically Bhagavatam. Svayam in Svayam rupa does not imply one and only, and all conceptions by previous Vaishnava traditions, according to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas beliefs, fall under a second category, tad ekatma rupa (meaning: one that one and not different). 'Svayam' as a term means not depending on others or being himself.

Concept of svayaṁ-rūpa is a new view that is believed by the Gaudiya Vaishnavas and generally not upheld in previous Vaishnava traditions and with greater Hinduism at present. Rūpa Gosvāmī has described the svayaṁ-rūpa in his Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta, Pūrva-khaṇḍa, verse 12: ananyāpekṣi yad rūpaṁ svayaṁ-rūpaḥ sa ucyate. "The form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead that does not depend on other forms is called svayaṁ-rūpa, the original form."

The tad-ekātma-rūpa forms are also described in the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta (Pūrva-khaṇḍa, verse 14)


 * yad rūpaṁ tad-abhedena svarūpeṇa virājate
 * ākṛtyādibhir anyādṛk sa tad-ekātma-rūpakaḥ

"The tad-ekātma-rūpa forms simultaneous to svayaṁ-rūpa form and are nondifferent. At the same time by their bodily features and specific activities they appear to be different." While referring to a huge topic in itself, acintya-bheda-abheda, non-difference, its important to note that this concept is mainly referring however to relation of the saktiman and the sakti, not relation between tad-ekātma-rūpas, as there is no implication of differences. The tad-ekātma-rūpa forms are divided into two categories—svāṁśa and vilāsa – in this essay, comparing Narayana forms with forms of Krsna, we are concerned mainly with the svāṁśa  but without going into further separating categories.

To the beliefs of Gaudiya Vaishnavas, the Visvakarma Sukta of Rig Veda (10.82) refers to Garbhodakasayi Viṣṇu as the Supreme: The waters verily first retained the embryo in which all the gods were aggregated, single deposited on the navel of the unborn (ajah), in which all beings abide. and according to the Gaudiyas, falls under category of tad-ekātma-rūpa,

According to the Gaudiya Vaishnava interpretation, it is also confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā (7.7), which says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat: "There is no truth superior to Me." Some consider it to be the reference to tad-ekatma rupa and thus not contradicting views of Ramanujacharya or Madhvacharya.

To the views of the Gaudiya Sampradaya, the Bhagavad-gita states that this bhakti-yoga is secretive: sarva-guhyatamaṁ bhūyaḥ śṛṇu me paramaṁ vacaḥ - "Just hear from Me again about the most confidential part of the instructions in Bhagavad-gītā." It is also described as such in Bhagavata Purana Vashnavas of ISKCON often stress their view that in both cases Krishna is speaking about himself, aham and me in Sanskrit mean, I am and Me respectively. While some commentators derive secondary meanings, all major Sanskrit dictionary accept that the direct meaning of aham and me, refers to Krishna himself.

Creation perspective
In Hinduism and previous Vaishnava groups, sarga, or subtle creation, is based upon scriptural adherence to Narayana or Vishnu being the cause of creation expanding into Viraja and then Maha-Viṣṇu glancing over pradhana , and that is the start of actual function of creation.

It is a traditional view of Gaudiya Vaishnavas that the Brihad Bhagavatamrita, by Sanatana Goswami has illustrated this principle, not just in terms of comparative cosmology, but also in terms of cosmology of adi-rasa. The cosmological principle of the four dhamas is the key of the graphical presentation, but it is also the answer to the dilemma often presented by the followers of other sampradyas, such as Sri Vaisnavas, who uphold that there is no factual scriptural basis for the claim that Krishna is the source of avataras. However some groups maintain that its only Gaudiya Vaishnavas who are in existence only since the 16th century and created this notion, svayam according to some Sri Vaishnavas refers that is he is Narayana 'himself' in all qualities as Krishna, unlike all the other avataras. In accordance with the cosmology of the Brihad Bhagavatamrita Krishna is believed being the original and most complete in all rasas or tastes is in fact not engaged and non engaging, is his independence, he does not even, at least in this his original form, carry symbols of Viṣṇu, he only carries his own flute, and that is the pleasure of his devotees.

Original Purusha of the Vedas
Traditional Vaishnava beliefs are based solely on the statements of the Vedas where the demigods are looking up to the feet of the Viṣṇu, who is referred in the passage as Supreme. It is fact that this verse of the Rig Veda is the foundation of Vaisnava tradition. Vishnu or Purusha is also presented in Upanishads in the context of philosophical presentation of the all-pervading oneness. In the Gopala Tapani Upanishad; written in the 17th century, this Rig Veda verse(1.22.20) was re-written differently, paraphrasing the original of the Vedic hymn in accordance with the beliefs of the Gaudiya Vaishnava: etad visnoh paramam padam ye nityodyuktah samyajante na kaman / tesam asau gopa-rupah prayatnat prakasayad atma-padam tadaiva. - "To they who always diligently worship Lord Viṣṇu's transcendental form, the Lord, in His original form as a cowherd boy, shows His lotus feet." It outlines a specific view held only by the Gaudiya Vaishnava and Vallabha Sampradaya, that the conclusion of Vishnu worship is meditation on gopa-rupah or form of Krishna as a cowboy.

The Krsna Upanishad supports this view and refers to the original, saksad, Hari as gopa-rüpa. (1.10-12):


 * ''gopa-rūpo hariḥ sakṣan maya-vigraha-dharaṇaḥ
 * ''durbodhaṁ kuhakaṁ tasya mayayā mohitaṁ jagat
 * ''durjayā sa suraiḥ sarvair dhṛṣṭi-rūpo bhaved dvijaḥ
 * ''rudro yena kṛto vaṁsas tasya māyā jagat katham
 * ''balaṁ janaṁ suraṇaṁ vai teṣāṁ janaṁ hṛtaṁ kṣaṇat
 * śeṣa-nago bhaved ramaḥ kṛṣṇo brahmaiva sasvatam

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead appeared in His original form as a cowherd boy. Cheated and bewildered by His illusory potency, the world could not understand His true identity.

"Even all the demigods cannot defeat the Lord's Maya potency. By the Lord's Yogamaya potency Brahma became a stick and Siva became a flute. How did the Lord's Maya potency manifest the entire universe?

"Knowledge is the strength of the demigods. The Lord's Maya potency steals away that knowledge in a single moment. Lord Sesanaga appeared in His original form as Lord Balarama. The eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead appeared in His original form as Lord Krishna."

Vishnu forms are believed to be "eka-atma", one and the same, the same self and refer to Purusa of the Veda. Both Krishna and Vishnu Narayana forms are believed to be transcendent and non-different. However Gaudiya Vaishnava argue that Krsna possesses qualities that are absent in other forms and they relate to his sweetness in Vrindavana lila.

Main evidence from Bhagavata Purana
Only within the In Gaudiya Vaishnava and Vallabha Sampradaya, is Krishna believed to be fully represented in his original form in the Bhagavata Purana and at the end of the list of avataras a text concludes:


 * ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam indrāri-vyākulaṁ lokaṁ mṛḍayanti yuge yuge

"In every millennium, whenever there is any trouble for the obedient rulers, the Lord appears. He also appears for the sake of His pure unalloyed devotees. The surrendered rulers and the pure devotees are always strictly under the control of the Lord, and they are never disobedient to the desires of the Lord. The Lord is therefore always attentive to them." Here it is believed that in accordance with direct interpretation Krsna as svayam-bhagavān  means svayam rupa. Not all of the commentators of the Bhagavata provide this distinction. However a majority of contemporary commentaries highlight this verse as significant.

One verse of the Gita (avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā) is often used as rhetoric by the Gaudiya Vaishnavas apologists. A view that is only specific to the followers of Caitanya or Vallabhacharya and not upheld by the older Vaishnava and Hindu groups, are the three kinds of misunderstandings of Krishna. First is common man may mistake Krishna to be just a regular historic personality, second one (in relation to mayavadi) may consider that he is Brahman covered in gross matter and the third (in relation to misra-bhakti followers of the older Vaishnava Sampradayas or groups) one may consider Him to be incarnation of Viṣṇu, subordinate to Viṣṇu or Narayana. Its usually disputed but Gaudiya Vaishnavas and followers of Valabhacharya are the only groups to base this on the following quote from Brahma Sutras: visesam ca darsayati "The Supreme Personality of Godhead reveals Himself to His pure devotees." Some say that one of the distinguishing characteristics of such devotees is absence of pride. compassion to others and presence of the intense feeling of separation.

"He regretted everyone's misfortune, including his own. The pure devotee of the Lord thinks himself most unfortunate. That is due to excessive love for the Lord and is one of the transcendental perceptions of viraha, the suffering of separation."

Source of Para-Vasudeva

 * This appears to be most controversial section. Maybe editors can suggest rewording some of it or maybe adding a different title. Wikidās ॐ 09:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Baladeva Vidyabhusana in his commentary on The Gopala Tapani Upanishads states:


 * ''gopala-tapanim naumi ya krsnam svayam isvaram
 * kara-stharava-sankasam sandarsayati sad-dhiyah

Translation: Glory to the Gopala Tapani Upanishad, which to the pious reveals Lord Krsna, the original Personality of Godhead, the Supersoul near to all moving and unmoving creatures.

The word used is krsna svayam isvaram, the paraphrase of the Bhagavatam verse 1.3.28 that Jiva Goswami has called a key sutra, not only to the Bhagavatam but to Vedanta and thus all the Vedas.

According to the Upanishads its believed that when Brahma, who is said to be original created being, was approached by the sages Four Kumaras he was presented with critical question: kah paramo devah – Who is Supreme God? kuto mrtyur bibheti – Who does death fears? kasya jnanenakhilam vijnatam bhavati – By knowing Whom, does everything else gets realised? kenedam visvam samsaratiti – Who is that person, who is behind the repetition of creation of this Universe? His own original or sweet form, Sva-bimbaṁ to the is not manifested very often in the Universe, loka-locanam. Gaudiya Vaishnavas quote sources that claim that it happens only ones in a universal day of Brahma, and its only at that time its believed, once every fourteen manvantaras, each seventy one divya-yugas duration. Some religions do not even consider it possible to see the God. To answer four Kumaras Brahma needed to relate this secret word of the seed mantra. And this is believed to be the answer to the question, who is supreme god and how he creates this world.


 * ''krsno vai paramam daivatam govindan mrtyur bibheti


 * gopijanavallabha-jnanena taj jnatam bhavati svahayedam samsarati

Brahma replied to the sages: "Krisna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Death fears Govinda. By knowing Gopijanavallabha everything becomes realized. By pronouncing the word "svaha" the Personality of Godhead created the world.

Used as another scriptural evidence, Sanat-Kumara Samhita confirms that this Kama Gayatri is the foundational structure of the Goloka, believed to be the above of Krishna, who is the original Vaasudeva :


 * ''karnikayam likhed vahni-
 * ''putitam mandala-dvayam
 * ''tasya madhye likhed bijam
 * sadhyakhyam karma samyutam

"In the whorl of the lotus flower which is Lord Krishna's transcendental abode, the Gopala mantra is written."

Difference to other sampradayas
The Sri Sampradaya and the followers of Madhvacharya, because of adherence to Shruti or the original scriptures such as the four Vedas and the main Upanishads, uphold that Vishnu/Narayana is the original form of Godhead. [pov] Where as the Gaudiya Vaishnava, Rudra Sampradaya and the Kumara Sampradaya, accept the new[ [see references] concept that Krsna is the Supreme personality of Godhead.

While some sampradayas considers moksa to be the ultimate goal, groups like the Gaudiya Sampradaya accept the prayer of Uddhava where he states the basis of the understanding, that bhakti is above and is superior to even moksa. [ [Tattvavadis]] and advaitins on the other hand often stress that bhakti leads to moksa, liberation.

This is NOT POV, this is a known fact. Obvious to everyone who practises Hinduism. And, I contest it.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I can see where the problem is here: the POV is in the statement "because of adherence to Shruti or the original scriptures such as the four Vedas and the main Upanishads" - a problematic statement because all sampradayas consider their beliefs to be supported by the scriptures. -- Shruti14 t c s 00:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Were dealing with shruti; 4 vedas and main upanishads. the sampradayams supported by wikidas DO NOT follow Shruti. But, follow Smriti and itihasas literature.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Zeuspitar, I will be polite. This is a POV accusation, if you wish such a accusation, you may want to present a WP:RS that support every word of it. Todate you are just talking and doing disruptive POV comments, only some of which are useful. I have already contact admin of this particular project for a mediation with you mainly because of the constant personal harrassment from your side based on my religious affiliation. Please stop. Wikidās ॐ 08:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I too have contact an admin. And, you too, on many occations have done the same thing. Let the mediator come. Your religious affiliation is put into every edit you do, and many editors have said the same thing, and threaten you too.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not about editors, its about edits. I will be removing the section Difference to other sampradayas - this whole section is the Gaudiya perspective. You can put non OR statements in the other section Wikidās ॐ 11:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical records
Krishna images were worshipped at many places. Quoting Curtius, Dr DC Sircar says that an image of Herakles (i.e. Vasudeva-Krishna) was being carried in front of the Paurava army, as it advanced agains the greeks led by Alexander the Great (The Cultural Heritage of India, vol. 4. p. 115) An interesting terracotta palgue showing Vasudeva carrying the infant Krishna over his head across the flooded Yamuna river, belonging to c. first century is housed in the Mathura Museum. A Mora stone insciption of about the same time refers to some images of Bhagavata Vrshni Panchaviras, Sankarshana, Vasudeva, Pradyumna, Samba and Aniruddha - whch were very beutifully carved in stone.

In Patanjali's time identification of Krsna with Vasudeva is an established fact as is surmised from a passage of the Mahabhasya - (jaghana kamsam kila vasudevah). This supposed earliest phase is though to have been established from the sixth to the fifth centuries BCE at the time of Panini, who in his Astadhyayi explained the word vasudevaka as a bhakta, devotee, of Vasudeva and its believed that Bhagavata religion with the worship od Vasudeva Krishna were at the root of the Vaishnavism in Indian history. Not just historical records of the Greeks show existence of the bhakti tradition to Krsna-Vaasudeva , besides that, even the Panini will give an evidence to the ancient root of Krsna-Vaasudeva bhakti, since he quotes on bhakti to Vaasudeva from Arjunas example.


 * I have highlighted the ares that needs to be addressed or deleted. Wikidās ॐ 08:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole section needs to be discussed and contested. It is absolutely POV.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The POV I find is mainly in the second paragraph of this section. -- Shruti14 t c s 00:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Shruti, I argee and maybe it can be reworded to avoid it, but its a word for word citation from the original source [at this link.] Wikidās ॐ 07:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing?
Wikidas, what are you doing? I have alerted all of the main editors about what you are doing and the admin DaGizza. This needs to stop. What are you doing putting the whole article on the discussion page? You got to stop it....We need the other editors on this!Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Elements do need discussion. This is the disussion page. Please comment under the relevant sections and or edit it here, prior to puting out items without discussion. Wikidās ॐ 08:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize that you have been warned about things like this before? You have been doing things like this for a while. Like I said before, the other editors and admin's have been contacted. This situation will be resolved. (Do you remember your comments with Redtiger, dc, shruti and abecedare? They heavily chastized you for shananagans before.) We need the others to mediate between us. For once and for all. If they dont, I will be taking this to the administration of Wikipedia.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Zeuspitar, I can see that previous edits sent half of the lead in the ref tag and made the article unreadable. Please be careful and do not do distructive editing, as not only you edit this article. Yes there was discussion on RS. And I have addressed the issues and only quote RS. You however do not. Wikidās ॐ 09:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you mummbling about. Please dont warn anyone, you need to take the warnings that were given to you by almost every editor dealing with Hindu articles.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

POV in Historical records
The historical records section does not have POV as its all carefully referenced from relevant works as per references. Please refer to references. Maybe POV tag is POV? 

The references have been contested by myself and othe editors. This seciton is a pov.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry these are different references to the others disputed being WP:RS. I will add them to the board for a review later. Wikidās ॐ 10:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually they have already been confirmed by the board. If you have another POV lets get the sources. See WP:YESPOV Wikidās ॐ 11:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

IP edits
While some IP recent edits can be considered POV, I suggest we should look at them impartially as it seems they bring in clarity that was starting to miss in the article. Let me know what you think. Wikidās ॐ 09:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently IP was new to the WP and did not put summary to the edits. He went thought to the mid section with general revision and grammar corrections. However some statements needs to be tagged . Wikidās ॐ 12:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions regarding translations and article subject
Under the circumstances, I cannot see why the current tendency to include original text, and subsequently translation, is being done. It is particularly dubious to translate the title phrase in the translation, as the article as it is currently structured is in fact about that phrase. I would think at the very least including that phrase in its original form throughout the article would make sense. If the purpose of this article is to discuss the question as to who is the "original" form of Krishna/Narayana/Vishnu (listed in alphabetical order), then changing the title to reflect that in some way should be done. In that event, the content might also be adjusted to discuss the various "contenders" individually, as that would be the clearest way to raise the issue to those not particularly familiar with Vaishnavism. I do think that the determining the purpose of the article is probably the most important issue though. At this point, I would think that having one article discussing the question in a way inclusive of all perspectives would be the way to go. It could, if the amount of content warranted it, be broken into separate articles about each "contender"'s claim later. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have created this article specifically to address one perspective, but I agree it can become a sub-article or a Main article for this particular idea.
 * So article structure can something like this:


 * Godhead (in Hinduism)
 * Vishnu as Supreme Personality - Param
 * Krishna as Supreme Personality - Svayam bhagavan
 * Narayana as Supreme Personality - Para deva
 * Or another look at it:


 * Concept of monotheism in Vaishnavism
 * Visnoh parama padam
 * Svayam bhagavan
 * Adi deva
 * Is it in any way what we intend? Im afraid the article will become too big if all are in one, at the same time there could be an insentive to make progress if all three are discussed separatly and only refered to the main body. Wikidās ॐ 15:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary Section

 * "In the sixth book of the Hindu epic Mahābhārata, the Bhishma Parva (better known as the Bhagavad Gita), Krishna offers numerous quotations that reaffirm the belief that he himself is the Svayam bhagavan. Verse 7.7 of the Bhagavad Gita, is often used to reaffirm that Krishna himself is the Svayam bhagavan, and that no impersonal form of Brahman supersedes his existence."

The above, from the Summary section, appears to contain POV for these main reasons: it is unsourced (as addressed by the tags), and they support only one main point of view (other Vaishnava sects that do not uphold the belief of Krishna as "svayam bhagavan" do not hold these verses as upholding that belief). -- Shruti14 t c s 01:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Shruti, I have added the other POVs to achieve WP:YESPOV - that is something that I need to be pointed out to what extend more I need to add other POV to get the balance right especially since Svayam bhagavan is a concept specific to Krishna-centered traditions. If some one can just point to me 30% in this section and 40% in this section I can do that I think. Let me know what you think of the current section. Wikidās ॐ 09:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The prime supporters of the Krishna-centered theology, Vallabha Sampradaya, Nimbarka Sampradaya, and the Gaudiya Vaishnavas use the Gopala Tapani Upanishad, Vedanta Sutras and other Hindu scriptures such as the Bhagavata Purana and the Brahma Vaivarta Purana (among others) to support their view that Krishna is indeed the Svayam bhagavan. This belief was summarized by the 16th century author Jiva Goswami in some of his works, such as Krishna-sandarbha.
 * Summary (revised1)

In the sixth book of the Hindu epic Mahābhārata, the Bhishma Parva (better known as the Bhagavad Gita), Krishna offers numerous quotations that reaffirm the belief that he himself is the Svayam bhagavan. Verse 7.7 of the Bhagavad Gita, is often used to support the opinion that Krishna himself is the Svayam bhagavan, and that no impersonal form of Brahman supersedes his existence, as it an common view that Bhagavad Gita was propounding Krishna-theism before early proponents of monism.

Other two pervading understandings of the position of Krishna asserted in the Gita are connected to other traditions. One tradition follows predominately view of Sankaracharya commentary on Brahma Sutras and is referred as maya-vad which justifies Svayam bhagavan supremacy by a concept of illusion or maya.

The second alternative understanding of the supremacy asserted by Svayam bhagavan in Gita, is a popular view on Krishna being an highest and fullest 'avatar' of the Lord, Vishnu or Narayana. "The Bhagavad Gita depicts Krishna not only as Brahman but also as an avatara of Vishnu and the friend of Arjuna." In summary in accordance with this view Svayam bhagavan Krishna is considered to be the purna-avatara (full incarnation) of Vishnu or, according to some, of the universal Narayana who transcends even Brahma.

Wikidās ॐ 09:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence
I still really don't like the terming of "evidence" used throughout the article - this implies that the article (and the "evidence" provided) proves one theory or POV and attempts to disprove others. -- Shruti14 t c s 20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I have also separated section for non Gaudiya views (if any) on the criticism of the concept. Wikidās ॐ 11:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Krishnology
This section can be removed, and it was proposed to me. I am not sure, if any of the editors think that this section should be removed I will accept it, can be certainly be shortened. Wikidās ॐ 07:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Western academic study
 * I have shorten it as far as its relevant to this particular article. But the above still stands and if ANY of the editors think it should be removed let me know. Wikidās ॐ 11:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree that it should be removed, due to lack of relevance in the article. -- Shruti14 t c s 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In often separate, but related subjects of study, Vaishnava theology was a focus of many devotees, philosophers and scholars within India for centuries. In recent decades this study has also been taken on by a number of academic institutions in Europe, such as the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies and Bhaktivedanta College.
 * I removed the above section from the article. Should anyone want to add it, please feel free to do so but discuss it here first as there appears to be a consensus on it. Wikidās ॐ 15:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Arguments and Responses
Yes, I know I'm being a bit picky here, but I'm not sure that I like the current title of the section, although they are improved and much more accurate and descriptive than "Summary". "Arguments and Responses" implies that the whole section is about, well, arguments and responses, whereas the entire first section is simply about the Gaudiya/Vallabha/Nimbarka perspective. I also slightly modified some of the subheadings to keep it simple - let me know what you think. -- Shruti14 t c s 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources again
Please provide secondary sources for: durbodhaṁ kuhakaṁ tasya mayayā mohitaṁ jagat durjayā sa suraiḥ sarvair dhṛṣṭi-rūpo bhaved dvijaḥ rudro yena kṛto vaṁsas tasya māyā jagat katham balaṁ janaṁ suraṇaṁ vai teṣāṁ janaṁ hṛtaṁ kṣaṇat śeṣa-nago bhaved ramaḥ kṛṣṇo brahmaiva sasvatam ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam :indrāri-vyākulaṁ lokaṁ mṛḍayanti yuge yuge
 * ref 23: ananyāpekṣi yad rūpaṁ svayaṁ-rūpaḥ sa ucyate.
 * 29 : Rg.10.082.06
 * ref 31: BG 18.64
 * ref 32: sarva-guhyatamaṁ bhūyaḥ śṛṇu me paramaṁ vacaḥ
 * ref 33: SB 2.9.35: yathā mahānti bhūtāni bhūteṣūccāvaceṣv anu praviṣṭāny apraviṣṭāni tathā teṣu na teṣv aham
 * 42: The Eleventh Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.4.3-4) describes Lord Mahāpuruṣa: bhūtair yadā pañcabhir ātma-sṛṣṭaiḥ puraṁ virājaṁ viracayya tasmin svāṁśena viṣṭaḥ puruṣābhidhānam avāpa nārāyaṇa ādi-devaḥ "When the primeval Lord Nārāyaṇa created His universal body out of the five elements produced from Himself, and then entered within that universal body by His own plenary portion, He thus became known as the Puruṣa.
 * 43: tasmad virat ajayata virajo adhi purusah - From him was born Viraja and from Viraja – Purusha. Rg. 10.90
 * 48: Rg 1.22.20 oṃ tad viṣṇoḥ paramam padam sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ: "All the suras look always toward the feet of Lord Viṣṇu."
 * 50: gopa-rūpo hariḥ sakṣan maya-vigraha-dharaṇaḥ
 * 51: This is also a position of the Madhvas – one should avoid such superficial `nava-vidha dveshha' - the nine forms of hatred of the Supreme Being, outline by Tattvavadi line, as in this instance by denying His unique greatness and freedom from all defects and limitations.
 * 53: Bhag. Purana 1.3.28
 * 56: Bg 9.22
 * 58: Śrī Gopāla Tapanī bhāśya 1.1

gopala-tapanim naumi ya krsnam svayam isvaram kara-stharava-sankasam sandarsayati sad-dhiyah kuto mrtyur bibheti kasya jnanenakhilam vijnatam bhavati kenedam visvam samsaratiti gopijanavallabha-jnanena taj jnatam bhavati svahayedam samsarati ^ Bhag. P. 5.24.27: tasyānucaritam upariṣṭād vistariṣyate yasya bhagavān svayam akhila-jagad-gurur nārāyaṇo dvāri gadā-pāṇir avatiṣṭhate nija-janānukampita-hṛdayo yenāṅguṣṭhena padā daśa-kandharo yojanāyutāyutaṁ dig-vijaya uccāṭitaḥ. Śukadeva Gosvāmī continued: My dear King, how shall I glorify the character of Bali Mahārāja? The Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of the three worlds, who is most compassionate to His own devotee, stands with club in hand at Bali Mahārāja's door. When Rāvaṇa, the powerful demon, came to gain victory over Bali Mahārāja, Vāmanadeva kicked him a distance of eighty thousand miles with His big toe. I shall explain the character and activities of Bali Mahārāja later [in the Eighth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam]. ^ Bhag. P. 7.1.1 samaḥ priyaḥ suhṛd brahman bhūtānāṁ bhagavān svayam indrasyārthe kathaṁ daityān avadhīd viṣamo yathāKing Parīkṣit inquired: My dear brāhmaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Viṣṇu, being everyone's well-wisher, is equal and extremely dear to everyone. How, then, did He become partial like a common man for the sake of Indra and thus kill Indra's enemies? How can a person equal to everyone be partial to some and inimical toward others? ^ Bhag. P. 8.5.4 patnī vikuṇṭhā śubhrasya vaikuṇṭhaiḥ sura-sattamaiḥ tayoḥ sva-kalayā jajñe vaikuṇṭho bhagavān svayamFrom the combination of Śubhra and his wife, Vikuṇṭhā, there appeared the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vaikuṇṭha, along with demigods who were His personal plenary expansions
 * 59: Kṛṣṇa sandarbha 29.4-5
 * 60 :Kṛṣṇa sandarbha 29.104
 * 62-65: kah paramo devah
 * 67 SB 3.2.11
 * 70 krsno vai paramam daivatam govindan mrtyur bibheti
 * 71: (note not ref) Svähä is the mantra by which offerings are made into the sacrificial fire.5 It is derived from the root ä(hu with the prefix su meaning “well-done,” meaning “according to the vidhi.” This etymology is tentatively accepted by Monier-Williams. The verb root vah is only used in the perfect tense. “to say, speak, state.” Monier-Williams gives the following meanings for svähä: “hail! hail to! May a blessing rest on” As a noun: “an oblation, oblation personified.” Both svähuti and svähväna are found in Rg.
 * "In the whorl of the lotus flower which is Lord Krishna's transcendental abode, the Gopala mantra is written" which ref 72-76, gives this translation
 * ref 83 : bhaktiḥ | 4.3.96 acittāt adeśakālāt ṭhak | 4.3.97 mahārājāt ṭhañ | 4.3.98 vāsudeva arjunābhyāṁ vun | Panini 4.3.95
 * ref 85-88: Bhag.P. 2.7.21: dhanvantariś ca bhagavān svayam eva kīrtir nāmnā nṛṇāṁ puru-rujāṁ ruja āśu hanti yajñe ca bhāgam amṛtāyur-avāvarundha āyuṣya-vedam anuśāsty avatīrya loke. The Lord in His incarnation of Dhanvantari very quickly cures the diseases of the ever-diseased living entities simply by his fame personified, and only because of him do the demigods achieve long lives. Thus the Personality of Godhead becomes ever glorified. He also exacted a share from the sacrifices, and it is he only who inaugurated the medical science or the knowledge of medicine in the universe.

These primary sources are interpreted by the author, the interpretations can be regarded as WP:OR. A citecheck for these refs is needed. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This falls under discussion on RS for religion related articles and the question is an open one, I would appreciate comments by others:


 * Secondary sources by religious teachers
 * Most of sources above fall under this category and deal with the traditional views of the sect - they were discussed and they fall under the kind called "Writings by sectarian leaders/teachers." (as in the discussion referred in the links above). As per consensus of the board: "These sources can be useful to express the sect's own views of itself and the world. However great care should be taken that these opinions are carefully attributed." There are a number of conditions under which they are to be used as per above * quoted discussionon the board - it appeared to have received a WP:consensus.


 * However it would be important to have a second opinion on use of the sectarian sources to support views of a particular sect, be it Christian, Muslim or Vaishnava. Especially if the article is about (as for example this one) a concept that is formulated by a sect. It would be useful to conclude on it as to avoid unnecessary tagging.


 * In essence they merely illustrate the particular view help within particular religious interpretation as a POV in WP:YESPOV. I do not think you can just dismiss all the writings as they are all WP:V. Let me know what other editors think and if this WP:V material should be removed.


 * Obvious if it is not WP:V material it should be removed. If the sects opinion is taken out of context its should be noted and removed again.


 * Primary Sanskrit sources as translated by religious/sectarian teachers.


 * There is a number of such quotes above and they are typical on all Hinduism related works, mainly because of the different media.


 * If reference is to a Sanskrit slokas which is necessary if you talk about a Sanskrit term, as is the case in this article on Svayam bhagavan do we need to show a context of the sectarian text as per above where they were taken from? Again opinion is sought on inclusion of this type to achieve the consensus. I understand that this is English encyclopedia and a care should be taken to avoid use of Sanskrit in the main text, but I can not see any harm in retaining actual Sanskrit in the footnotes, let me know what you think.


 * We all know that secondary sources are better, but its not an absolute necessity for all the material, as far as I understand.

Wikidās ॐ 15:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But these verses are not even translated by religious/sectarian teachers.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually some translations I picked up on Vaisnavism page are not WP:RS (I wonder if you will also tag them there?). I will be adding links to translations and will remove such unsupported references. Wikidās ॐ 20:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If there are any non-WP:RS on any page, including this article, or the Vaishnavism page (which I haven't actually taken a good look at due to being busy lately), then they should be removed. -- Shruti14 t c s 22:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Shruti, my understanding that WP can use primary sources but its better to use secondary, especially if views are disputed ie to avoid OR in manipulation of the primary sources. Wikidās ॐ 15:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Broken Citation Errors
Please fix the following reference errors ASAP if possible or remove the refs: Thanks. -- Shruti14 t c s 19:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Cite error: Invalid tag; invalid names, e.g. too many" ("Theory of avataras" subsection of the "Gaudiya Vaishnava perspective" section)
 * 2) "Cite error: Invalid tag; no text was provided for refs named Gupta2007" (ref #13 in the "Notes" section)

This is the key reference form the oxford publication that studies Jiva Goswami and his works, such as Krishna-sandarbha. One should be careful as not to delete such important references - this one is the key to this article. I will get it out later and put more relevant information in the article replacing some of the primary sources with this secondary source. Wikidās ॐ 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't disputing the refs. If you see where they are in the article, the tags aren't placed correctly, causing "Cite error" (MediaWiki's way of saying that something is wrong with either the or the tags).  If you were the one who placed those refs in the article, and could fix them so that the "Cite error", that would be great. -- Shruti14 t c s 02:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The errors have been fixed - thanks. -- Shruti14 t c s 04:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Placement
There are a few things that aren't placed where they are best-suited in the article. For example:
 * "This belief is drawn primarily "from the famous statement of the Bhagavatam"" (1.3.28):

is in the lead of the article - something atypical and not in WP:MOS. The quote may be better-suited in, for example, the "Supporting" subsection of the "Perspectives" section. Another one is this, in the "Supporting" subsection of the "Perspectives" section:
 * "Followers of Lord Swaminarayan belive that Lord Narayan manifested himself as Lord Swaminarayan. "

Good information, but how does this apply to the "Supporting" perspective of the Krishna-centered view of svayam bhagavān? It doesn't really fit into that section and should probably be put elsewhere. -- Shruti14 t c s 22:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This sloka of the Bhagavata is not supporting, its the key. It should not be deemphasized. Maybe format should be slightly different instead of quotation. Agree on SN quote - badly placed. It should possibly go to other used section. Wikidās ॐ 22:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the shloka shouldn't be in the article, just that it probably doesn't belong in the lead per WP:MOS and WP:LEAD. Removing it from the lead and placing it elsewhere (in a more appropriate location) is not deemphasizing the quote but rather reorganizing the placement of the quote in the article. -- Shruti14 t c s 00:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Shruti, its ✅. Wikidās ॐ 00:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
Lead: "The title Svayam bhagavan is used exclusively to to designate Krishna.", though referenced, contradicts the list of other gods referred to as Svayam bhagavan in "other uses".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Redtigerxyz, I have noted your observation at the quotation. Wikidās ॐ 15:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)