This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think u didnt get wat i just wrote u r putting the pic of dasavatar on top of the article wheras their is a special section for it plus it is a hindu related article, so let the template be on top, that 3RR rule also applies on you 115.252.34.64 ( talk) 21:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep in the lower part of the article. Priyanath talk 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Replace the {{
Hinduism}} template with the more specific {{
Hindu scriptures}} template, which should then be Place somewhere lower in the article. Images that are directly related to the subject should always get preference over navigational aids that guide the readers to other articles that may interest them; this is similar to the placement of the See also section prescribed in
WP:Layout. The templates are not meant to mark the article as a "Hindu related article", which is anyways obvious from the lede sentence.
Abecedare (
talk) 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Corrected.
Abecedare (
talk)
15:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
"Avatar" is a Hindu PHILOSOPHY, if u look at the template it covers all Hindu philosophies, hence Hinduism template is well placed on top, Priyanath keeps on putting the "Dasavatar" pic on top, as if it is Dasavatar article.
Their is a seperate section of the article about Dasavatar of Lord Vishnu, that is the place where that pic should be placed and has been done so by me, try to be open minded about the whole article rather than sticking to the point that it has been like that since one year. 115.252.47.209 ( talk) 09:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have put a strong point, i was never involved in the discussion 115.252.47.209 ( talk) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
What hopping u dont even want to discuss the article now?? 115.252.47.209 ( talk) 09:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Avatar doesnt only mean "Avatars of Vishnu" but Avatars of all other gods like Shiva and Brahma. When u place a pic on top it means it represents the whole article but in this case it doesn't, its a hindu philosophy and so the template should be placed on top. 115.252.47.209 ( talk) 09:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay this edit war is getting really old. IP editor, we have a policy here on Wikipedia called Don't-give-a-fuckism. It means that there is no logical reason for you to be so adamant about an article being one way. It is clear that the consensus here is against your opinion. As we go by consensus here on the Wiki, please stop reverting a change that really does not matter a whole bunch. from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 09:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Dude i m giving a point here not counting votes, if u want to edit, edit with ur head and heart in right place rather than driven by ur ego 115.252.47.209 ( talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I never tried to dissuade you from "giving a point." My "point" was about your edit warring, not this discussion. By all means, argue for your point, but do it on this talk page, not by repeatedly reverting the same edit. from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 09:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Well now I am putting a point and one can see how valid it is. 115.252.47.209 ( talk) 11:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have moved the {{ Hinduism}} template back down, as is the consensus in the above discussion (ignoremy above suggestion to replace it with {{ Hindu scriptures}} - I don't know what I was thinking!) Abecedare ( talk) 15:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone recommend reliable sources for lists or definitive descriptions of Avatars of Devi, Shiva, etc.? The article is weighted heavily toward Vishnu avatars. The long lists of Vishnu avatars, imo, should probably be merged or just linked to Vishnu and Dasavatar articles. Priyanath talk 00:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The page view statistics from the last few days (since Avatar (2009 film) came out) are interesting. It seems quite a lot of people are suddenly interested in learning more about the original meaning of the term. This article is averaging approx. 104,000 views each day for the last three days, [3] up from a long-term average closer to 10,000. The related pages show that people really are interested in this article. The dab page, Avatar (disambiguation), for example is up to 13,000 each day. [4] And the movie's page, Avatar (2009 film), is up to fewer than 5,000 per day. [5] It's a good excuse to keep improving this article so that it gives so many readers the best information possible. Priyanath talk 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The references do not use the term "avatar" or "avatara" (incarnation, or descent in English), they say forms (which is closest to the Sanskrit "rupa"). The rupa and avatar are 2 different concepts. The forms are NOT avatars. Is avatar terminology used in Shaktism needs to be examined by references? Removing the section till then. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 03:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Both of you are right in your own ways, and the situation is more complicated/subtle than we would have perhaps preferred. Here are some relevant quotes from Hindu Avatāra and Christian Incarnation: A Comparison, Noel Sheth Philosophy East and West, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 98-125.
Although we do find avataras in Saivism and Saktism, they are not universally accepted in these two tradition. (pg. 98)
Visnu's personified power (sakti), Laksmi, also descends as avataras, for ex- ample as Sita and Radha. (pg 117)
Note that the second quote may well represent a Vaishnava view of Shakti, rather than how she is viewed in Skaktism. And here is a footnote in the paper talking about rupa, avatar etc (unfortunately the original source in German)
Paul Hacker traces the terminological history of the doctrine of avatara in his article "Zur Entwicklung der Avataralehre" (Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud- undOstasiens4 [1960]: 47-70), reprinted in Paul Hacker, Kleine Schriften, ed. Lambert Schmithausen, Glasenapp-Stifftung vol. 15 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1978). He informs us that the earlier words for Visnu's manifestations were rupa, vapus, tanu, and akrti (form); these were followed by the expression pradurbhava (manifestation) (pp. 405-407). The term avatarana first referred to the action of descending, not to the person who descended (p. 417). Simi- larly, even when the word avatara first replaces avatarana, it refers to the action alone and not to the person (pp. 421-422). Avatarana is employed not only for the descent of deities but also in a very peculiar sense, namely the removal of the burden of the earth or, more literally, "making the burden [of the earth] descend" (bharavatarana) (p. 415). Initially, the word avatara was applied to other deities as well, and was not used in reference to every man- ifestation of Visnu. It is only around the sixth century C.E. that the term was reserved primarily for all the descents of Visnu (pp. 409, 424).
The Sheth paper has some interesting material for this article. I may not have time this week to add from it, but if either of you are interested, I can forward it to you. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 05:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
So that they are all in one place for discussion.
Priyanath talk 05:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Following up on Abecedare's suggestion to make the article more descriptive and less listy, I would like to suggest the removal/merging of all the lists into their respective Avatar articles (Vishnu, Ganesha, etc.), where they are not already in those articles. If we keep the list approach, we will rightfully have to add a list of the 28 avatars of Shiva from the Linga Purana, and the numerous Devi avatars from the Devi Bhagavatam.
Instead of all these lists, there should be sections simply titled "Vishnu", "Ganesha", etc., with a description of the main origin/story of their avatars, and naming and describing a few of the most prominent, such as Krishna and Rama in the Vishnu section. Each section should look much like the "Avatars of Devi" section is starting to look, though with more development. In addition, there should be an "Etymology and usage" section right after the lede, with material taken from the Sheth article excerpted above, and other sources. Priyanath talk 06:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I've added the {{refimprove|section}} tag to the section because there are no reliable sources provided. Earlier, I had deleted the section after a long search could find not a single reliable, third-party, neutral source per WP:RS, but it's now been added back. I invite others to search for reliable sources also, otherwise that section should be removed or narrowed down to what can legitimately be verified. Priyanath talk 05:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The information I have added is well-known. The information is also found in Bhakti Schools of Vedanta, by Swami Tapsyananda, although I don't have a copy of the book with me currently Please take a look at that book, http://www.vedanta.com/store/product75.html The reference to Guna avatars is well known in Gaudiya theology. Links need not merely include books. A well-referenced web site can suffice in some cases. For example, historically, the information found in Western encylopedia sources such as Encarta have been weak so a reference to Encarta alone is incomplete and inadequate. I have done the same with the article, Karma in Hinduism which is substantially my own because most Hindus mistakenly believe that karma is merely a law of cause and effect. So you can trust me. I believe that the avatar article is incomplete without this section.
Raj2004 ( talk) 14:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, there should be a deephasis on avatars of Shiva or Ganesh. Their faiths generally don't believe in the avatar concept. When you think of the avatar concept, it is primarily Krishna or Vishnu oriented. The section referring to Narasimha is obviously not believed by followers of Vaishnavism so I am editing it. It needs to have a opposing viewpoint because non-Hindus should not be persuaded to believe that the view of some Shaivites on Narasimha is the prevailing viewpoint.
Raj2004 ( talk) 15:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Priyanth, I don't care what some people believe either. You are following your own point of view too. These sources are well-respected. Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami of the Himayalan Academy was a well-respected Saivite scholar. Anybody who knows Shaivism in general knows that Shaivites generally don't believe in avatars. To say otherwise is false, misleading and your own point of view. Your or my own lack of knowledge does not count. Any well-respected site such as Himaylan Academy or Ramakrishna Mission should be adopted. Gaudiya information on gaudiya is correct and verifiable. It presents the same info from Bhakti schools of Vedanta. Please check the book if you are not sure. Unfortunately, I don't have the book with me, or otherwise I would have cleaned up the section using the book.
Thank you.
Raj2004 ( talk) 17:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Also you present the cite for Shiva avatars to be " Soifer, Deborah A. (1991). The myths of Narasiṁha and Vāmana: two avatars in cosmological perspective. SUNY Press. pp. 91-92. ISBN 9780791407998. http://books.google.com/books?id=OoFDK_sDGHwC&pg=PA92. " Which Hindu has heard of Deborah Soifer? Deborah Soifer is clearly a non-practicing Hindu. Any Vaishnavite would clearly not believe in the Shaivite theory of Narasimha. More Hindus have heard of Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami than Ms. Soifer????
Raj2004 ( talk) 17:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Also you have a bias for Western books, instead of referring to better referenced Indian websites. All good references regardless whether it is a web site should be considered.
Thank you.
Raj2004 ( talk) 17:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added some info from Swami Sivananda by citing http://www.dlshq.org/religions/avatara.htm#kinds This is clearly an authoritative source.
Raj2004 ( talk) 18:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
No. if you read the site correctly, I refer to the term incarnation: incarnation
From incarnate, "made flesh." The soul's taking on a human body. -- divine incarnation: The concept of avatara. The Supreme Being's (or other Mahadeva's) taking of human birth, generally to reestablish dharma. This doctrine is important to several Hindu sects, notably Vaishnavism, but not held by most Saivites.
See Also: avatara. I will correct the mistake. Also you refer to only a Shaivite pov of view referring to Narasimha, which is clearly not adopted by Vaishnavites.
Raj2004 ( talk) 22:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I agree. I modified it a bit. But this view of Narasimha is obviously not believed by Vaishnavite followers. You are not following a neutral point of view; Redtiger said that the shaivite pov of view needs to be neutralized; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raj2004#Karma_in_Hinduism_2;
Thanks for your constructive criticism.
Raj2004 ( talk) 00:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits. I added a more reliable source, the book "Dancing with Shiva," and extracted its terms from the glossary. See, http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/dws_table_of_contents.html and See terms, incarnation and avatar on http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/dws_r9_glossary-G-N.html.</ref>
This book is available on Amazon.
Raj2004 ( talk) 12:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't follow this debate over the weekend, but looking at the article editing history, it seems that some editor(s) may have violated WP:3RR. Given that all editors involved on this page are highly experienced, I would expect that any disputes can be resolved through discussion on talkpage, instead of repeated reverts. Regards. Abecedare ( talk) 16:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
While the issue of sourcing is being discussed below, can someone clarify what statement in the article is being disputed. If the statement is along the lines of avatars not being central to, or universally accepted in, Saiva tradition, I think we should be able to reliable sources for it. Abecedare ( talk) 17:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Here are two relevant sources. The Sheth paper:
Although we do find avataras in Saivism and Saktism, they are not universally accepted in these two traditions.
and Parrinder, Edward Geoffrey (1982). Avatar and incarnation. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. p. 88. ISBN 0-19-520361-5.
Followers of Siva have occasionally spoken of him as appearing in Avatars. the Linga Purana speaks of a number of these, but they are pale copies of those of Vishnu. Some of the sects of south Indian Saivism claim an avatar of Siva for their founders. Lakulisa, who originated a Saivite philosophy, is said to have been an Aatar of Siva with a staff in his left hand and a citron in his right. His work begins with a dialog of Siva and Parvati, in which Siva relates his Avatar. Other myths tell of his wondrous childhood. Some of the Saivite works say that their doctrines were given by Siva in successive incarnations. But in the main the Avatar doctrine is resrved for followers of Vishnu.
Parrinder cites Dasgupta's History of Indian Philosophy vol V, pp. 7, 155, which we have access to! So the peripheral role of avatars in Saivism should be easy to source. Abecedare ( talk) 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Priyanth and Abecedare for adding those academic resources. I knew that avatar is not central to Saivism. I don't have access to the academic sources as you guys have.
Raj2004 (
talk)
21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
In my view this comment is not correctly situated in the opening paragraph. The comment about the manifestation more closely resembling docetism in christian theology as distinct from incarnation in mainstream Christology -- is not the most relevant point , while there may be many other theological interpretations of 'manifestation' or 'incarnation' however i think it needs to be placed in a different section to highlight other religious interpretations of the Hindu idea of avatāra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-singularity ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean 'some schools' -- some christian schools? Again, i don't see why because some esoteric christian schools misinterpret 'incarnation' as being heretic to mainstream christian beliefs that it is a reason to qualify this in the opening paragraph. Furthermore avatāra is not strictly correct as 'incarnation' a better word is 'manifestation'. Thus the rebuttal on docetism on the word 'incarnation' is even weaker considering its not the correct definition of avatāra! I suggest placing this in a new section on other Theological interpretations -- NOT in the opening paragraph. '
Wiki-singularity ( talk) 17:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Some people believe that websites are inferior sources of information. This is not the always the case. Some well-respected encylopedias such as Encarta, have poor sections on Hinduism. Some websites such as those sponsored by Himalayan Academy and Vedanta Press are very good authoritative websites. Judge the information source, rather than the type of medium. Also please don't let your own bias cloud you. Some people may be not be aware of Himaylan Academy but those who know know it to be a reliable source!
Raj2004 ( talk) 16:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Understood. Unfortunately, when it comes to Hinduism, in some cases, academic sources are non-existent. Sometimes commercial presses such as Vedanta Press, Himalayan Academy and the Divine Life Society (Swami Sivananda) are the only sources. And many times, their publications are not reviewed in scholarly literature. It does not mean that they can't be used in many cases. Nor can they can be always labeled as an unreliable source. For example, the academic literature on Karma in Hinduism is practically non-existent. Only the Divine Life Society and Ramakrishna Mission had books critiquing this topic. There was only one academic book, Dasgupta, Surendranath, A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume V, The Southern Schools of Saivism, on this topic. Hope you understand. As for Wendy Doniger, she may be a professor but her views on Hinduism are bizzare. As that blog commentator Sandeep stated, "There’s an entire cultural, philosophical, and spiritual heritage that cannot be understood merely in theory and bookish learning–it requires living the tradition."
Raj2004 ( talk) 17:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I have some sympathy for Raj2004 concerns about how we define authoritative sources for subject topic -- i could not imagine a more golden standard for information source Vedanta than from the RamaKrishna Math (Vedanta Press) or Divine Life Society -- we must be careful that with the topic of Hinduism most of the academic research is still conducted outside of India where its at risk of a dry academic rigour applied to it. Wiki-singularity ( talk) 22:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that's great! Can you add these sources to the article? With Wendy Doniger, we have to be careful though as she has been said to misrepresent Hinduism. I would really respect the Yuvaraj Krishna reference. It is quite extensive and was published by Motilal Barnasidas, a well-respected Indian publisher. I would lend less credence to Doniger and others. Thanks. Raj2004 ( talk) 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time either. Hopefully one of the wikipedian editors can look at the Krishnan book. It seems like another fine book from Motilal Barnasidas.
Raj2004 (
talk)
18:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The film link is repeated added to the article. IMO, singly out the film is unfair to all other links in Avatar (disambiguation), though Page statistics of Avatar_(2009_film) suggest that it is heavily trafficked. Should we put the link using {{ two other uses}} temporarily? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
we can keep the separate mention of the film during the film's launch, as there will be much traffic related to that. This will pass in a month or so, and we can remove it again after Christmas. -- dab (𒁳) 18:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I had said that a blog commentator Sandeep once stated of Western Indologists, "There’s an entire cultural, philosophical, and spiritual heritage that cannot be understood merely in theory and bookish learning; it requires living the tradition." I had seen a reference to Hanuman being labeled an avatar of Shiva in the previous version of this avatar article by referring to this academic resource referenced in footnote 28-Lutgendorf, Philip (2007). Hanuman's tale: the messages of a divine monkey. Oxford University Press US. p. 44. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=fVFC2Nx-LP8C&pg=PT333&dq=avatara+Hanuman&lr=&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=snippet&q=avatara%20%20Shiva&f=false. This is clearly not an universal statement. Many other Hindu followers consider Hanuman to be an avatar of Vayu. So I changed the statement to read: Hanuman who helped Rama - the Vishnu avatar is considered by some to be the eleventh avatar of Rudra (Shiva). Please critically review the academic resource and don't blindly follow the academic. This academic is clearly wrong again! Thanks, Raj2004 ( talk) 21:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Clarification. You have to read my statements entirely in context. I didn't mean clearly wrong that way. I will clarify. What I mean to say is that to consider Hanuman as the avatar of Rudra as the absolute universal statement is clearly wrong, as the academic Philip Lutegendorf suggested in the brief excerpt in the link. I had not read the book so I can't say what Yes, Hanuman is most commonly considered to be the son of Vayu but followers of Dvaita consider him also as an avatar of Vayu. You probably did not know of this view either so the statement asserting that Hanuman is an avatar of Vayu is not an erroneous statement just because you did not know of the statement either. I agree that in editing, we learn about other views of Hinduism. Thanks, Raj2004 ( talk) 22:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Raj2004 ( talk) 00:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Raj2004 ( talk) 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Where can Avatars of Shesha like Lakshama, Balarama, Patanjali be added? They come under the Vaishnava fold. Also, Lakshmi incarnates as Sita and Radha - is a Vaishnava idea, rather than a Shakta one. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for the great job you are doing on this page.
May I suggest to include a section entitled "The concept of avatar in popular culture" in the article
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think u didnt get wat i just wrote u r putting the pic of dasavatar on top of the article wheras their is a special section for it plus it is a hindu related article, so let the template be on top, that 3RR rule also applies on you 115.252.34.64 ( talk) 21:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep in the lower part of the article. Priyanath talk 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Replace the {{
Hinduism}} template with the more specific {{
Hindu scriptures}} template, which should then be Place somewhere lower in the article. Images that are directly related to the subject should always get preference over navigational aids that guide the readers to other articles that may interest them; this is similar to the placement of the See also section prescribed in
WP:Layout. The templates are not meant to mark the article as a "Hindu related article", which is anyways obvious from the lede sentence.
Abecedare (
talk) 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Corrected.
Abecedare (
talk)
15:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
"Avatar" is a Hindu PHILOSOPHY, if u look at the template it covers all Hindu philosophies, hence Hinduism template is well placed on top, Priyanath keeps on putting the "Dasavatar" pic on top, as if it is Dasavatar article.
Their is a seperate section of the article about Dasavatar of Lord Vishnu, that is the place where that pic should be placed and has been done so by me, try to be open minded about the whole article rather than sticking to the point that it has been like that since one year. 115.252.47.209 ( talk) 09:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have put a strong point, i was never involved in the discussion 115.252.47.209 ( talk) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
What hopping u dont even want to discuss the article now?? 115.252.47.209 ( talk) 09:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Avatar doesnt only mean "Avatars of Vishnu" but Avatars of all other gods like Shiva and Brahma. When u place a pic on top it means it represents the whole article but in this case it doesn't, its a hindu philosophy and so the template should be placed on top. 115.252.47.209 ( talk) 09:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay this edit war is getting really old. IP editor, we have a policy here on Wikipedia called Don't-give-a-fuckism. It means that there is no logical reason for you to be so adamant about an article being one way. It is clear that the consensus here is against your opinion. As we go by consensus here on the Wiki, please stop reverting a change that really does not matter a whole bunch. from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 09:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Dude i m giving a point here not counting votes, if u want to edit, edit with ur head and heart in right place rather than driven by ur ego 115.252.47.209 ( talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I never tried to dissuade you from "giving a point." My "point" was about your edit warring, not this discussion. By all means, argue for your point, but do it on this talk page, not by repeatedly reverting the same edit. from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 09:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Well now I am putting a point and one can see how valid it is. 115.252.47.209 ( talk) 11:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have moved the {{ Hinduism}} template back down, as is the consensus in the above discussion (ignoremy above suggestion to replace it with {{ Hindu scriptures}} - I don't know what I was thinking!) Abecedare ( talk) 15:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone recommend reliable sources for lists or definitive descriptions of Avatars of Devi, Shiva, etc.? The article is weighted heavily toward Vishnu avatars. The long lists of Vishnu avatars, imo, should probably be merged or just linked to Vishnu and Dasavatar articles. Priyanath talk 00:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The page view statistics from the last few days (since Avatar (2009 film) came out) are interesting. It seems quite a lot of people are suddenly interested in learning more about the original meaning of the term. This article is averaging approx. 104,000 views each day for the last three days, [3] up from a long-term average closer to 10,000. The related pages show that people really are interested in this article. The dab page, Avatar (disambiguation), for example is up to 13,000 each day. [4] And the movie's page, Avatar (2009 film), is up to fewer than 5,000 per day. [5] It's a good excuse to keep improving this article so that it gives so many readers the best information possible. Priyanath talk 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The references do not use the term "avatar" or "avatara" (incarnation, or descent in English), they say forms (which is closest to the Sanskrit "rupa"). The rupa and avatar are 2 different concepts. The forms are NOT avatars. Is avatar terminology used in Shaktism needs to be examined by references? Removing the section till then. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 03:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Both of you are right in your own ways, and the situation is more complicated/subtle than we would have perhaps preferred. Here are some relevant quotes from Hindu Avatāra and Christian Incarnation: A Comparison, Noel Sheth Philosophy East and West, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 98-125.
Although we do find avataras in Saivism and Saktism, they are not universally accepted in these two tradition. (pg. 98)
Visnu's personified power (sakti), Laksmi, also descends as avataras, for ex- ample as Sita and Radha. (pg 117)
Note that the second quote may well represent a Vaishnava view of Shakti, rather than how she is viewed in Skaktism. And here is a footnote in the paper talking about rupa, avatar etc (unfortunately the original source in German)
Paul Hacker traces the terminological history of the doctrine of avatara in his article "Zur Entwicklung der Avataralehre" (Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud- undOstasiens4 [1960]: 47-70), reprinted in Paul Hacker, Kleine Schriften, ed. Lambert Schmithausen, Glasenapp-Stifftung vol. 15 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1978). He informs us that the earlier words for Visnu's manifestations were rupa, vapus, tanu, and akrti (form); these were followed by the expression pradurbhava (manifestation) (pp. 405-407). The term avatarana first referred to the action of descending, not to the person who descended (p. 417). Simi- larly, even when the word avatara first replaces avatarana, it refers to the action alone and not to the person (pp. 421-422). Avatarana is employed not only for the descent of deities but also in a very peculiar sense, namely the removal of the burden of the earth or, more literally, "making the burden [of the earth] descend" (bharavatarana) (p. 415). Initially, the word avatara was applied to other deities as well, and was not used in reference to every man- ifestation of Visnu. It is only around the sixth century C.E. that the term was reserved primarily for all the descents of Visnu (pp. 409, 424).
The Sheth paper has some interesting material for this article. I may not have time this week to add from it, but if either of you are interested, I can forward it to you. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 05:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
So that they are all in one place for discussion.
Priyanath talk 05:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Following up on Abecedare's suggestion to make the article more descriptive and less listy, I would like to suggest the removal/merging of all the lists into their respective Avatar articles (Vishnu, Ganesha, etc.), where they are not already in those articles. If we keep the list approach, we will rightfully have to add a list of the 28 avatars of Shiva from the Linga Purana, and the numerous Devi avatars from the Devi Bhagavatam.
Instead of all these lists, there should be sections simply titled "Vishnu", "Ganesha", etc., with a description of the main origin/story of their avatars, and naming and describing a few of the most prominent, such as Krishna and Rama in the Vishnu section. Each section should look much like the "Avatars of Devi" section is starting to look, though with more development. In addition, there should be an "Etymology and usage" section right after the lede, with material taken from the Sheth article excerpted above, and other sources. Priyanath talk 06:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I've added the {{refimprove|section}} tag to the section because there are no reliable sources provided. Earlier, I had deleted the section after a long search could find not a single reliable, third-party, neutral source per WP:RS, but it's now been added back. I invite others to search for reliable sources also, otherwise that section should be removed or narrowed down to what can legitimately be verified. Priyanath talk 05:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The information I have added is well-known. The information is also found in Bhakti Schools of Vedanta, by Swami Tapsyananda, although I don't have a copy of the book with me currently Please take a look at that book, http://www.vedanta.com/store/product75.html The reference to Guna avatars is well known in Gaudiya theology. Links need not merely include books. A well-referenced web site can suffice in some cases. For example, historically, the information found in Western encylopedia sources such as Encarta have been weak so a reference to Encarta alone is incomplete and inadequate. I have done the same with the article, Karma in Hinduism which is substantially my own because most Hindus mistakenly believe that karma is merely a law of cause and effect. So you can trust me. I believe that the avatar article is incomplete without this section.
Raj2004 ( talk) 14:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, there should be a deephasis on avatars of Shiva or Ganesh. Their faiths generally don't believe in the avatar concept. When you think of the avatar concept, it is primarily Krishna or Vishnu oriented. The section referring to Narasimha is obviously not believed by followers of Vaishnavism so I am editing it. It needs to have a opposing viewpoint because non-Hindus should not be persuaded to believe that the view of some Shaivites on Narasimha is the prevailing viewpoint.
Raj2004 ( talk) 15:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Priyanth, I don't care what some people believe either. You are following your own point of view too. These sources are well-respected. Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami of the Himayalan Academy was a well-respected Saivite scholar. Anybody who knows Shaivism in general knows that Shaivites generally don't believe in avatars. To say otherwise is false, misleading and your own point of view. Your or my own lack of knowledge does not count. Any well-respected site such as Himaylan Academy or Ramakrishna Mission should be adopted. Gaudiya information on gaudiya is correct and verifiable. It presents the same info from Bhakti schools of Vedanta. Please check the book if you are not sure. Unfortunately, I don't have the book with me, or otherwise I would have cleaned up the section using the book.
Thank you.
Raj2004 ( talk) 17:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Also you present the cite for Shiva avatars to be " Soifer, Deborah A. (1991). The myths of Narasiṁha and Vāmana: two avatars in cosmological perspective. SUNY Press. pp. 91-92. ISBN 9780791407998. http://books.google.com/books?id=OoFDK_sDGHwC&pg=PA92. " Which Hindu has heard of Deborah Soifer? Deborah Soifer is clearly a non-practicing Hindu. Any Vaishnavite would clearly not believe in the Shaivite theory of Narasimha. More Hindus have heard of Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami than Ms. Soifer????
Raj2004 ( talk) 17:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Also you have a bias for Western books, instead of referring to better referenced Indian websites. All good references regardless whether it is a web site should be considered.
Thank you.
Raj2004 ( talk) 17:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added some info from Swami Sivananda by citing http://www.dlshq.org/religions/avatara.htm#kinds This is clearly an authoritative source.
Raj2004 ( talk) 18:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
No. if you read the site correctly, I refer to the term incarnation: incarnation
From incarnate, "made flesh." The soul's taking on a human body. -- divine incarnation: The concept of avatara. The Supreme Being's (or other Mahadeva's) taking of human birth, generally to reestablish dharma. This doctrine is important to several Hindu sects, notably Vaishnavism, but not held by most Saivites.
See Also: avatara. I will correct the mistake. Also you refer to only a Shaivite pov of view referring to Narasimha, which is clearly not adopted by Vaishnavites.
Raj2004 ( talk) 22:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I agree. I modified it a bit. But this view of Narasimha is obviously not believed by Vaishnavite followers. You are not following a neutral point of view; Redtiger said that the shaivite pov of view needs to be neutralized; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raj2004#Karma_in_Hinduism_2;
Thanks for your constructive criticism.
Raj2004 ( talk) 00:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits. I added a more reliable source, the book "Dancing with Shiva," and extracted its terms from the glossary. See, http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/dws_table_of_contents.html and See terms, incarnation and avatar on http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/dws_r9_glossary-G-N.html.</ref>
This book is available on Amazon.
Raj2004 ( talk) 12:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't follow this debate over the weekend, but looking at the article editing history, it seems that some editor(s) may have violated WP:3RR. Given that all editors involved on this page are highly experienced, I would expect that any disputes can be resolved through discussion on talkpage, instead of repeated reverts. Regards. Abecedare ( talk) 16:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
While the issue of sourcing is being discussed below, can someone clarify what statement in the article is being disputed. If the statement is along the lines of avatars not being central to, or universally accepted in, Saiva tradition, I think we should be able to reliable sources for it. Abecedare ( talk) 17:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Here are two relevant sources. The Sheth paper:
Although we do find avataras in Saivism and Saktism, they are not universally accepted in these two traditions.
and Parrinder, Edward Geoffrey (1982). Avatar and incarnation. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. p. 88. ISBN 0-19-520361-5.
Followers of Siva have occasionally spoken of him as appearing in Avatars. the Linga Purana speaks of a number of these, but they are pale copies of those of Vishnu. Some of the sects of south Indian Saivism claim an avatar of Siva for their founders. Lakulisa, who originated a Saivite philosophy, is said to have been an Aatar of Siva with a staff in his left hand and a citron in his right. His work begins with a dialog of Siva and Parvati, in which Siva relates his Avatar. Other myths tell of his wondrous childhood. Some of the Saivite works say that their doctrines were given by Siva in successive incarnations. But in the main the Avatar doctrine is resrved for followers of Vishnu.
Parrinder cites Dasgupta's History of Indian Philosophy vol V, pp. 7, 155, which we have access to! So the peripheral role of avatars in Saivism should be easy to source. Abecedare ( talk) 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Priyanth and Abecedare for adding those academic resources. I knew that avatar is not central to Saivism. I don't have access to the academic sources as you guys have.
Raj2004 (
talk)
21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
In my view this comment is not correctly situated in the opening paragraph. The comment about the manifestation more closely resembling docetism in christian theology as distinct from incarnation in mainstream Christology -- is not the most relevant point , while there may be many other theological interpretations of 'manifestation' or 'incarnation' however i think it needs to be placed in a different section to highlight other religious interpretations of the Hindu idea of avatāra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-singularity ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean 'some schools' -- some christian schools? Again, i don't see why because some esoteric christian schools misinterpret 'incarnation' as being heretic to mainstream christian beliefs that it is a reason to qualify this in the opening paragraph. Furthermore avatāra is not strictly correct as 'incarnation' a better word is 'manifestation'. Thus the rebuttal on docetism on the word 'incarnation' is even weaker considering its not the correct definition of avatāra! I suggest placing this in a new section on other Theological interpretations -- NOT in the opening paragraph. '
Wiki-singularity ( talk) 17:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Some people believe that websites are inferior sources of information. This is not the always the case. Some well-respected encylopedias such as Encarta, have poor sections on Hinduism. Some websites such as those sponsored by Himalayan Academy and Vedanta Press are very good authoritative websites. Judge the information source, rather than the type of medium. Also please don't let your own bias cloud you. Some people may be not be aware of Himaylan Academy but those who know know it to be a reliable source!
Raj2004 ( talk) 16:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Understood. Unfortunately, when it comes to Hinduism, in some cases, academic sources are non-existent. Sometimes commercial presses such as Vedanta Press, Himalayan Academy and the Divine Life Society (Swami Sivananda) are the only sources. And many times, their publications are not reviewed in scholarly literature. It does not mean that they can't be used in many cases. Nor can they can be always labeled as an unreliable source. For example, the academic literature on Karma in Hinduism is practically non-existent. Only the Divine Life Society and Ramakrishna Mission had books critiquing this topic. There was only one academic book, Dasgupta, Surendranath, A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume V, The Southern Schools of Saivism, on this topic. Hope you understand. As for Wendy Doniger, she may be a professor but her views on Hinduism are bizzare. As that blog commentator Sandeep stated, "There’s an entire cultural, philosophical, and spiritual heritage that cannot be understood merely in theory and bookish learning–it requires living the tradition."
Raj2004 ( talk) 17:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I have some sympathy for Raj2004 concerns about how we define authoritative sources for subject topic -- i could not imagine a more golden standard for information source Vedanta than from the RamaKrishna Math (Vedanta Press) or Divine Life Society -- we must be careful that with the topic of Hinduism most of the academic research is still conducted outside of India where its at risk of a dry academic rigour applied to it. Wiki-singularity ( talk) 22:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that's great! Can you add these sources to the article? With Wendy Doniger, we have to be careful though as she has been said to misrepresent Hinduism. I would really respect the Yuvaraj Krishna reference. It is quite extensive and was published by Motilal Barnasidas, a well-respected Indian publisher. I would lend less credence to Doniger and others. Thanks. Raj2004 ( talk) 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time either. Hopefully one of the wikipedian editors can look at the Krishnan book. It seems like another fine book from Motilal Barnasidas.
Raj2004 (
talk)
18:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The film link is repeated added to the article. IMO, singly out the film is unfair to all other links in Avatar (disambiguation), though Page statistics of Avatar_(2009_film) suggest that it is heavily trafficked. Should we put the link using {{ two other uses}} temporarily? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
we can keep the separate mention of the film during the film's launch, as there will be much traffic related to that. This will pass in a month or so, and we can remove it again after Christmas. -- dab (𒁳) 18:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I had said that a blog commentator Sandeep once stated of Western Indologists, "There’s an entire cultural, philosophical, and spiritual heritage that cannot be understood merely in theory and bookish learning; it requires living the tradition." I had seen a reference to Hanuman being labeled an avatar of Shiva in the previous version of this avatar article by referring to this academic resource referenced in footnote 28-Lutgendorf, Philip (2007). Hanuman's tale: the messages of a divine monkey. Oxford University Press US. p. 44. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=fVFC2Nx-LP8C&pg=PT333&dq=avatara+Hanuman&lr=&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=snippet&q=avatara%20%20Shiva&f=false. This is clearly not an universal statement. Many other Hindu followers consider Hanuman to be an avatar of Vayu. So I changed the statement to read: Hanuman who helped Rama - the Vishnu avatar is considered by some to be the eleventh avatar of Rudra (Shiva). Please critically review the academic resource and don't blindly follow the academic. This academic is clearly wrong again! Thanks, Raj2004 ( talk) 21:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Clarification. You have to read my statements entirely in context. I didn't mean clearly wrong that way. I will clarify. What I mean to say is that to consider Hanuman as the avatar of Rudra as the absolute universal statement is clearly wrong, as the academic Philip Lutegendorf suggested in the brief excerpt in the link. I had not read the book so I can't say what Yes, Hanuman is most commonly considered to be the son of Vayu but followers of Dvaita consider him also as an avatar of Vayu. You probably did not know of this view either so the statement asserting that Hanuman is an avatar of Vayu is not an erroneous statement just because you did not know of the statement either. I agree that in editing, we learn about other views of Hinduism. Thanks, Raj2004 ( talk) 22:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Raj2004 ( talk) 00:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Raj2004 ( talk) 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Where can Avatars of Shesha like Lakshama, Balarama, Patanjali be added? They come under the Vaishnava fold. Also, Lakshmi incarnates as Sita and Radha - is a Vaishnava idea, rather than a Shakta one. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for the great job you are doing on this page.
May I suggest to include a section entitled "The concept of avatar in popular culture" in the article