Template talk:Chaitanya sampradaya

Change of title
Can User:GourangaUK please explain the change of the title and how this particular sampradaya relates to all Gaudia Vaisnavas where each one has a different line. Wikidās 15:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it should be called ISKCON Sampradaya branch, or something that points out that it's only ISKCON's branch. There is many branches of Chaitanya's sampradaya, so currently the template could be considered POV. Right now it's called Hare Krishna, which really doesn't mean so much in relation to a list of disciplic succession. Something to consider. Chopper Dave (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Syama (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Agrees with Wikidās and Chopper Dave

If this is to be the template for all Gaudiya Vaisnava's rather than just ISKCON I will start including some of the other Acarya from the Gaudiya SampradiyaSyama (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a separate template will do for other ācāryas or gurus or leaders who are not part of this particular branch named ISKCON. I will check and see if just adding a code will add a line or two to the template to enable use of the same template for such options. If you know advanced template editing with all the if functions its possible to facilitate other branches without changing the template. Wikidās-ॐ 07:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing layout
I was thinking that this template would look much nicer horizontal, as it could be placed at the bottom of the pages like the Hinduism template. As it is it seems all the pages linked on the template don't include the template, and vice versa, all the pages with the template aren't included on it. So while the disciplic succession is important, it may not be so important that it needs to take up a huge area on each page. I think pages would benefit from being sideways, and perhaps having having a "show" button Chopper Dave (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Types of template
I would suggest using a horizontal layout as an option to the vertical that may fit some articles and their it can be placed at the bottom and in both cases can have a show button. Parampara has this verticality built in it (ie coming down) - it means that only articles that 'take part' in the parampara have it displayed horizontally.

I think however a different horizontal template should illustrate the ISKCON as a whole, including temples, dhamas, philosophy etc. Wikidās ॐ 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * An ISKCON template would be a good idea. The content of this template could easily be included or put on it's own page (as there is more detail to it - the actual Diksha line could be highlighted, extra detail about connections etc). I think it would make a suitable replacement. Chopper Dave (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest adding instead of replacing. In fact two templates for ISKCON to be added. Can we put links in the following categories: __NEWSECTIONLINK__

Founder
Prabhupada

Educational institutions
Bhaktivedanta College

Associated charities
Food for Life Wikidās ॐ 09:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for two templates

 * Please explain why you think two templates will be better. As far as I can see if they're about the same thing and going on all the same pages, they might as well be one. A large list of Acaryas isn't so relevant to most of the articles that it's currently placed on, and could be laid out much better with all the extra detail if it were on it's own page, which would be linked from the ISKCON template. Chopper Dave (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On a side note I have formatted a quick horizontal version here, if you want to take a look Chopper Dave (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Obvious reasons.
 * First template is the origin, parampara of ISKCON and other notable non-ISKCON devotees who follow the same path in different movements under the broad heading of Krishna Consciousness.
 * Second is the template that is about TODAYS status, and will reflect the ISKCON as it is. First one may be formated in such a way that all previous adepts can have a link or shorter version of it included on their page. Second obviously not, and only ISKCON institutional pages will display it as a footer.

Wikidās ॐ 07:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So why not have the Sampradaya on it's own page, rather than a template? There is a considerable amount of information missing (diksha/siksha links), so it would appear to be more appropriate to give the data that way.


 * Otherwise, thoughts on the horizontal layout? Chopper Dave (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be an option of horizontal layout. There also can be a page for the sampradya - parampara of ISKCON. That could be an effective element and can link from the sampradaya. I do not think that this template is mandatory and some ISKCON members removed it and its perfectly fine, its just a navigation template under construction. -- Wikidās ॐ 21:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your SB User:Chopper_Dave/scrapbook I do think that instead of abbreviation a Krishna ConsciousnessSampradaya is a better title for this horizontal option. ISKCON sounds very institutional. -- Wikidās ॐ 21:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While I can understand where you are coming from with this idea, to say that this is the Krishna Consciousness Sampradaya would be incorrect, rather it's just one of many branches. Not sure if there is any other solution? Chopper Dave (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Disciplic Succession of Bhagavad-gita As it Is
I noticed that this is the disciplic succession of Bhagavad-gita As it Is, as I found this exact order on the last page of the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.39.125 (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Madhva
Why is every other link pointing to Madhva disambig? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies regarding "The Disciplic Line of Succession" in Bhagavad-Gita As It Is
Recently, I was in a used book store and began comparing the older versions of the Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is with the newer version. On the last page of the introduction, one can find a list entitled "The Disciplic Line of Succession". Well, there were clearly 33 names listed under The Disciplic Line of Succession in the older version, but there are only 32 in the newer (current) version. So, I went down each list and found the one that had been changed (and/or combined) from the two different versions. As I recall, the inconsistency occurs around number 28. "(Baladeva) Jagannatha". This is where it's confusing for me. Is this a combination of Baladeva Vidyabhushana and Jagannatha dasa Babaji ? They were clearly two different people, and one was not initiated by the other. Baladeva studied under Visvanatha Chakravarti, who is listed as number 27 on The Disciplic Line of Succession, but Jagannatha accepted initiation (diksha) from Jagadananda Goswami, and later accepted Babaji initiation from Madhusudana dasa Babaji (and neither Jagadananda Goswami nor Madhusudana dasa Babaji are listed in The Disciplic Line of Succession). So, I found this inconsistency to be quite interesting.

I haven't had much luck finding more information about this online, or a direct lineage comparison and discussion regarding the two different lists, but I did find this: Muralidhar das, of The Sampradaya Sun, wrote the following in this article:  "The Parampara list given by Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in the introduction to Bhagavad Gita As It Is is the same list Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur gave in his commentary to Chaitanya Charitamrita. Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj Prabhupada listed the spiritual masters in his Guru Parampara as follows: '26) Narottama, 27) Visvanatha, 28) (Baladeva) Jagannatha'. It is to be noted that Narottama lived some two generations before Visvanatha and that Visvanatha lived two generations before Jagannatha das Babaji. Baladeva was a contemporary of Visvanatha. This list, therefore, is not a list of initiating Gurus and their direct disciples. Rather, it is a list of the most significant spiritual masters in the school of thought of Sri Chaitanya." Geneisner (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)