This 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. |
Archive 1 |
There are a lot more and older bhakti movements than chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Andries 14:22, 31 January 2004 (UTC)
How about we re-name this article to [Bhakti (History)] or [History of the Bhakti movements] or similar? Much of the information included is chronological rather than philosophical and it would then make sense as a partner-page to the other bhakti articles. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Headings in this article, and to a lesser extent content, seem largely Vaishnava. comes across as undue weight. -- Simon D M ( talk) 18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is vague, not to the point, incomplete and small emphasis on Bhakti Movement.
Bhakti Movement was started during the period of Delhi Sultanate.It's earliest known exponent is Ramanuja, who flourished in 12th century
others included Nimbarka, Madhava , Ramanand , Chaitanya who is considered one of the greatest saint of Bhakti movement, Namadeva , and Kabir. The founder of Sikhism , Guru Nanak is also considered to be a part of this movement. Ajjay ( talk) 09:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the introduction of Bhakti movement which states that "Islamic rulers were pressing public to convert religion from Hindu to Islam" - to this I have added citation needed because there is difference between political tyranny & socio-religious developments. Though I do not deny inter-relation between two, but Bhakti movement was not just response to that tyranny. It has very larger background - like opposition to rituals, social division on caste lines & Brahman dominance. So, it is inappropriate to call Bhakti movement as response to Islamic politcal tyranny which in fact defeats the whole purpose of Bhakti movement. Please refer Bipin Chandra's India's Struggle for Independence book (Chapter - Socio-religious reforms) this chapter clearly rejects concept that Medieval Muslim tyranny was anyway related to religious reforms. Javalkoti ( talk) 16:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Puthandu nothing to do with hinduism as it is celebarated by all tamils regardless of religion.Eventhough tamil calendar is influenced by sanskrit currently the new years date has been changed from chithirai to thai following Thiruvallivar andu Tamil calendar(unsanskritised) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.140.43.10 ( talk) 14:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why Puthandu is a topic here (I didn't see any mention of it in the article or elsewhere on the talk page). Anyway, Muthuvel Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, used his political influence to change the New Year. Soon after Jayalalithaa became the Chief Minister in 2011, the date was changed back to the original one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghav Sharman ( talk • contribs) 10:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
It claims two times in the article, that Bhakti was originated in Tamil Nadu. But its still unclear to me how this statement is made. Per my understanding it started In Maharashtra in the Varkari Sect. or in other words the "Bhagwat" samaj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.230.84 ( talk) 07:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Most contribute the birth of the Bhakti movement to the poets known as Alvars and Nayanars (Vishnu and Shiva devotees respectively) who came from Tamil Nadu around 500-900 A.D.. References abound for this. Arguably, certain upanishads describe bhakti that predate this such as the Shvetashvatara Upanishad which explicitly uses the word bhakti and "was presumably composed in the Maurya period (4th or 3rd century BCE)" Iṣṭa Devata ( talk) 16:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The Rama Bhakti section contains two pargaraphs about Ramananda (good) but then goes off on Krishna Bhakti, and turns into a list of all the Vedanta schools and their founders, which is not about Rama Bhakti, and barely about bhakti at all, but more about vedanta ontology. If no one objects I will do a massive purge of this section. Iṣṭa Devata ( talk) 15:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bhakti movement's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Flood":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Although there is nothing wrong with the original meaning of the word " cult", its current popular use and implications are mostly negative. I corrected one chance instance of "cult" to "movement" but then I made a search for "Bhakti cult" [2] and found that the use of this term is frequent. I do not feel adequate to go about making such changes on my own, so I bring this issue up here in case there is a consensus to effect such changes. Hoverfish Talk 09:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
No need to change this, this is the real meaning of cult. The negative associations we have with the word are only a secondary meaning that doesn't matter when discussing religious movements academically. Look up sect vs cult. A great book that mentions this difference is A History of Modern Yoga by Elizabeth DeMichelis. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 17:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
There are way too many specific references people put in to the header to suggest certain figures are prominent. Ramprasad Sen and the Virashaiva movement should be mentioned in the article body, not the header as neither one of them is a particularly universal or typifying example of the bhakti movement. If any Bhakti writer should be mentioned, it is Tulsidas or other definitive bhakti sants like the alvars. I'm removing these mentions, but welcome someone to reinsert them into relevant paragraphs in the body of the article. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 16:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Since the Virashaivism was added back, I've made a new section for it outside of the header. Hopefully to the liking of User:Mohanbhan Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 19:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Iṣṭa Devatā: Having a separate section for Vira Shaivism is fine but since it started in 12th century, (it actually started in 11th century, the first poet of the Virashaiva movement was Jedara Dasimayya), and is older than Rama and Vaishnava bhakthi movements, it should be the first section. Also I didn't start an "edit war" nor did I simply "revert" your edit. You can see that I retained your changes and simply added the paragraph on Vira Shaivism. - Mohanbhan ( talk) 01:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:BRD, when you make an edit it is reverted to the previous version and then the discussion takes place--this is the BRD cycle. The suggestion was to place Vira Shaivism as the first section since it started in 12th (11th century). You can claim that Advaita was part of Bhakti and add it to the article but you will have to support it with WP:RS. - Mohanbhan ( talk) 02:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The BRD cycle is, by its own description, optional. My edit wasn't bold. Copy pasting the paragraph back in the wrong place (the middle of an unrelated paragraph) was bold. Either way we're going way off point: I just thought it was a little aggressive to change it so sloppily. I am not trying to make any claims about advaita and bhakti, it was just an example of bhakti that precedes the founding of virashaivism. I am just saying you're claim on this talk page about vira shaivism being older than other forms of bhakti doesn't make any sense. If bhakti is from the seventh century, and lingayatism is from the twelfth, in what way is lingayatism the original bhakti or older than the alvars or rama bhakti? If an example is going to be spelled out in massive detail in the intro, it needs to typify the bhakti movement or be the origin of it or it should be its own section (or page). And I made it clear, I'm not trying to put any group 'first', advaita or vira. I'm just saying vira is clearly not the first bhakti movement nor a definitive example of a bhakti movement (really it's a movement that incorporates bhakti, but is not defined by it) and any changes based on that notion of preeminence would need to be backed up with references that don't exist on this page (or any other, because it's a far out sectarian claim). So if you want to push a lingayat agenda on this page, bring some evidence because it's looking mighty POV. Otherwise I'd just as soon drop this debate unless you have some practical changes you want to discuss. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 04:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
This article has had a WP:V request banner since 2013. A major surgery on this article is long overdue, which I am now doing. Please feel free to re-add text, but with reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 14:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Denomination | Sub-schools | Scholar-sant | Key works |
Saivism | [add] | [add] | [add] |
Vaishnavism | [add] | [add] | [add] |
Shaktism | [add] | [add] | [add] |
Smartism | [add] | [add] | [add] |
Sikhism | [add] | [add] | [add] |
[add] | [add] | [add] | [add] |
@ Jujhar.pannu: Do you have sources for what you mentioned in your edit comment, "Prior to Sikhism aspects of Shakti were always considered opposite and opposing to the concepts of Bhakti"? If you do, please provide. Otherwise, this reads like your OR/personal wisdom/personal prejudice. Perhaps if you provide a reliable source, I can review it and get back. You "Removed image is alternative Sikh practice", but per WP:NPOV, we can't take sides in disputes inside Sikhism. On rest of your edits, please do not remove reliable sources as you did here. If you have other sources which suggest "God is shown as both Nirgun and Sargan in Sikhi", please provide and we can add it as well. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 02:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jujhar.pannu: How about we make the following change,
References
I reviewed Bakhshi or Johar. Where do they say, there is no Bhakti in Sikhism? All they comment on is the idol worship and lamps, which is just one aspect of Bhakti. Bhakti has always been more than that - see the David Lorenzen etc books cited in this article. There is plenty of sources mentioning Jaap, kirtan, Ardas etc. See Nirmal Singh's Searches in Sikhism, page 93 and Darshan Singh's Indian Bhakti Tradition and Sikh Gurus, page 178. Are you okay if we mention kirtan, etc? On Shakti-Bhakti, you have not provided any source, just your personal opinions/wisdom/prejudice. If you read the Devi Mahatmya-related scholarly works, you will find that Shakti-Bhakti were not opposed, as you incorrectly allege, but they were synergistic/ cherished/ harmonious/ practiced together centuries before Sikhism was founded (e.g. see June McDaniel published by Oxford University Press, Vasudha Narayanan published by State University of New York Press, etc). Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 19:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Jujhar.pannu: I looked into more sources, as I promised above. I propose that we also summarize the Bhakti-content on Sikhism from the following,
I will give you a few days to review and comment. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 15:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
@ Jujhar.pannu: I reverted to the old stable version, per WP:BRD, a while ago, while I awaited your comments. Now, given the sources which are in the article and the new ones I have provided above (after my revert a few days ago), let us together work on a revised version for the Sikhism section. I will shortly propose a revised version, on this talk page. If you would like to suggest, please do. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 22:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
David Lorenzen states that Bhakti is an important idea within 15th-century religion Sikhism, just like Hinduism. [2] In Sikhism, Bhakti of nirguni (devotion to divine without attributes) is emphasized, [2] [3] [4] but it accepts both nirguni and saguni forms of the divine. [5]
The scripture of Sikhism is based on the hymns and teachings of the Sikh gurus, and thirteen Hindu and two Muslim bhagats. [6] The thirteen Hindu bhagats whose teachings were entered into the text, were poet saints of the Bhakti movement, and included Ramananda, Namdev, Pipa, Ravidas, Beni, Bhikhan, Dhanna, Jayadeva, Parmanand, Sadhana, Sain, Surdas, Trilochan, while the two Muslim bhagats were Kabir and Sufi saint Farid. [7] [8] [9] Most of the 5,894 hymns in the Sikh scripture came from the Sikh gurus, and rest from the Bhagats. The three highest contributions in the Sikh scripture were from Bhagat Kabir (292 hymns), Bhagat Farid (134 hymns), and Bhagat Namdev (60 hymns). [10] Some of the Bhagats whose teachings were included in the Guru Granth Sahib, were Hindu bhakti poets born before the birth of Guru Nanak – the founder of Sikhism. While Sikhism incorporated hymns from the Bhakti poet saints, it was not simply an extension of the Bhakti movement and Sikhism disagreed with some of the views of Kabir and Ravidas. [11]
Guru Nanak, the first Sikh Guru and the founder of Sikhism, was a Bhakti saint. [12] He taught, states Jon Mayled, that the most important form of worship is Bhakti. [13] Nam-simran – the repetition of God's name – is an important Bhakti practice in Sikhism. [14] [15] [16] Guru Arjan, in his Sukhmani Sahib, recommended the path of loving devotion to God. [17] The Sikh scripture Guru Granth Sahib includes suggestions for a Sikh to perform daily Bhakti. [18] [13][note 1: place here verses 305(16) - 306(2) into notes section with cite]
References
@ Jujhar.pannu: Please suggest changes, with WP:RS to improve the above version. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 23:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jujhar.pannu: If you feel the image over-emphasizes the minor sects within Sikhism, I am okay with removing the image, and moving the sentence in the caption into the main article, for WP:NPOV. As Joshua Jonathan, Chrisw80 and I have previously discussed, we need to keep the Ravidassia religion perspective when we discuss Sikhism. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 23:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
References
This article change is still incorrect on many fronts. Can you please provide any reference from the bhakti movement that considers doing arti a form of bhakti? The teachings from the Sikh perspective are very little and you removed my referenced content without mention so I added it back. Jujhar.pannu ( talk) 07:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, dear all. Interesting discussion which I am glad to be part of. Sharing some points related to the first sentence of the proposal "Some scholars call Sikhism a Bhakti sect of Indian traditions.[88][89]". After reading both these references, I found [88] says
" and (Sikhism) is often described as a bhakti sect by many Hindu and western writers. Sikhs dislike this description, which seems to question the distinctiveness of the revelation received by the Gurus."
In [89], it appears authors try to link Sikhism to a hypothetical "Bhakti religion" and that's about it. I think we should represent the reference [88] accurately. Right now, only the initial bit of the quote I shared above has been picked and this provides incomplete context. Rather, complete context needs to be provided for the readers. Looking forward to nice discussions. Revkh ( talk) 09:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi again, looking at the Raj Pruthi reference now. In the article we have "according to Raj Pruthi, it (Sikhism) was not simply an extension of the Bhakti movement". The complete and accurate quote however is as follows
"Sikhism should not be looked at as simply an extension of the Bhakti movement but as a new movement entirely."
Appeal again that the quote be included in full to provide complete information to readers. As you can see, I am most interested in ensuring that the sources are represented accurately without any cherry-picking. Revkh ( talk) 09:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jujhar.pannu: I dug more into Raj Pruthi source, and learn that his education is in law. The Pruthi book has been published by a recently founded private publisher which advertises for WP:SPS-type publications. FWIW, Pruthi's comparison of Christianity and Sikhism, Buddhism and Sikhism, etc is WP:FRINGE-y. The book is inconsistent internally, such as on Ahimsa. On page 6, states Pruthi, Nanak supports and explains Ahimsa. But on page 203 Pruthi declares "Sikh Guru's (sic) did not believe in this Hindu practice". Pruthi book has no scholarly reviews that I could find, and does not seem like a WP:RS. I will give you a few days to collect and present evidence that Pruthi source meets wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 18:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Kigman fs: Really? @Jujhar.pannu: I am concerned with the editorial oversight and the process the publisher uses to select authors per WP:RS guidelines. Beyond the publisher, Pruthi has a law degree, no peer reviewed religion-related journal articles I could find, and his views on Christianity/ Buddhism/ Hinduism/ Islam / etc versus Sikhism are strange and questionable. His book is internally inconsistent on Ahimsa, and raises questions. You need to find a better source. If Pruthi views are mainstream, you should be able to find multiple WP:RS publications by professor(s) or other well recognized scholars stating the same. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 00:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jujhar.pannu: Perhaps, we should discussion this item by item. Please explain why you are deleting the following sourced content,
Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 03:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
References
@Jujhar.pannu: Please explain why you are deleting the following sourced content,
Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 04:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
References
I did not delete that. Jujhar.pannu ( talk) 04:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
It is incorrect to suggest or imply that Shakti-Bhakti was unique to Sikhism. It existed many centuries before Sikhism was founded, and one of its central text is Devi Mahatmya. [1] The text and a related goddess-tradition existed in 1st-millennium CE, and thrived before the start of Sikhism. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 23:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
References
@Jujhar.pannu: Please provide quote from the source for the following...
Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 05:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi RexxS, thank you. The complete quote
Shakti in Sikhism is thus a part and parcel of Bhakti because the user of Shakti was required to work—even sacrifice, to see the will of God operating without any let and hindrance. In this sense Sikh Shakti is suffused with devotion to God because if it is not so, the Shakti (power) would turn out to be a power of a tyrant and not of God. A true Gurmukh or Gyani is the embodiment of Bhakti and Shakti.
According to Bhatt Kalsar, all the Gurus right from Guru Nanak to Guru Arian Dev had lived the life of Raj Jogi. Guru Hargobind underscored this point by wearing two swords representing Miri (temporal) and Piri (spiritual) aspect of Guru's office, which were the same as Bhakti and Shakti. Guru Tegh Bahadur, therefore, besides remembrance of God received military training. After he was elevated to guruship, he travelled widely and in course of his travels conducted himself in the manner of a chief, fond of horse-riding, wearing arms with the Kalghi on his turban, followed by a large retinue, just as his warrior father used to do.9S According to Dr. Fauja Singh, "Bhakti was to be continued with Shakti to offer full view of the Guru's philosophy of life."
Would you agree/disagree this proves that in Sikhism Shakti and Bhakti go hand in hand. Basically, there is no Bhakti without Shakti and vice-versa. For the Bhakti being higher than Shakti, Mr. Pannu likely says so since the flag for Bhakti at Amritsar Darbar Sahib is higher than the one for Shakti. All Sikhs know this. Revkh ( talk) 07:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, posting this to seek opinions from you all on this post I made earlier.
Hi, dear all. Interesting discussion which I am glad to be part of. Sharing some points related to the first sentence of the proposal "Some scholars call Sikhism a Bhakti sect of Indian traditions.[88][89]". After reading both these references, I found [88] says" and (Sikhism) is often described as a bhakti sect by many Hindu and western writers. Sikhs dislike this description, which seems to question the distinctiveness of the revelation received by the Gurus."
In [89], it appears authors try to link Sikhism to a hypothetical "Bhakti religion" and that's about it. I think we should represent the reference [88] accurately. Right now, only the initial bit of the quote I shared above has been picked and this provides incomplete context. Rather, complete context needs to be provided for the readers. Looking forward to nice discussions. Revkh (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi again, looking at the Raj Pruthi reference now. In the article we have "according to Raj Pruthi, it (Sikhism) was not simply an extension of the Bhakti movement". The complete and accurate quote however is as follows
"Sikhism should not be looked at as simply an extension of the Bhakti movement but as a new movement entirely."
Appeal again that the quote be included in full to provide complete information to readers. As you can see, I am most interested in ensuring that the sources are represented accurately without any cherry-picking. Revkh (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
All, and @ RexxS:, please do share if you agree or not. Thanks ! Revkh ( talk) 08:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
"More specifically, all its sects and currents were heavily influenced in their origins ... by ... the Bhagavad-gita and the Bhagavad-Purana."(page 1). I can see no reason why for example his assertion that
"Historically, Sikh religion derives from this nirgunicurrent of bhakti religion although it has established a conscious identity as a separate religion"(page 1) should not inform our text, as it seems to expound quite succinctly the relationship between the bhakti movement and Sikhism.
This used to be a half-decent article, in the sense that it could be read by a layperson. It is now chock-a-block with obscure technical terms, references to people whose authority/expertise is not explained, elements that seem almost irrelevant, and vague phrasing such as "some scholars". Alas, this seems to be quite a common trait when Ms Sarah Welch gets involved - is there any way we can simplify the thing? I am not an unintelligent person and I struggle to understand it. - Sitush ( talk) 08:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Grr. And another common event when MSW becomes involved is a total disregard for Indian English in favour of US English, and of existing citation styles. I've lost count of how many times I have mentioned this and still they carry on their merry way. It isn't difficult. - Sitush ( talk) 08:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request by an editor with a
conflict of interest was declined. The requested edit does not contain page numbers from the given reference. Please provide the page numbers where individual claims exist by using the {{
RP}} function of the citation template. |
Replace: "John Stratton Hawley describes recent scholarship which questions the old theory of Bhakti movement origin and "story of south-moves-north", then states that the movement had multiple origins, mentioning Brindavan in north India as another center.[123] Hawley describes the controversy and disagreements between Indian scholars, quotes Hegde's concern that "Bhakti movement was a reform" theory has been supported by "cherry-picking particular songs from a large corpus of Bhakti literature" and that if the entirety of the literature by any single author such as Basava is considered along with its historical context, there is neither reform nor a need for reform.[77]"
With: "In his book A Storm of Songs John Stratton Hawley shows how the notion of the bhakti movement crystallized in the earlier half of the twentieth century, giving special consideration to the dialogue between Hindi and English sources. Yet he also shows that the principal features of this narrative are older. Hawley draws attention to the paradigm of the four sampradays (orders or teaching traditions), which Nabhadas developed in his Bhaktamal in about 1600 C.E. This paradigm for understanding how southern Vaishnavism made its way northward was adopted and elaborated by various sectarian communities in north India under the pressure of political considerations in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Most people know the “south to north” story of how Bhakti infused itself into Indian life from the picture that is given in the Bhagavata Mahatmya, a text that praises the glories of the Bhagavata Purana. That text too turns out to be relatively recent—and again northern. The earliest manuscripts for the Bhagavata Mahatmya come from the early 18th century; they appear only in the north.
Keeping all of this in mind, Hawley asks what can now be said about the all-India bhakti movement narrative—very sort of story that has been told elsewhere in this essay. One obvious possibility—a path others have followed—is to disaggregate the bhakti movement (or “trend”—see above) into smaller, regionally coherent bhakti movements. Alternatively one could jettison the “movement” metaphor altogether and think in terms of an India-wide “bhakti network.” Hawley is not saying that there is no sense to the classical “south to north” narrative—there may indeed be—but the narrative itself is deeply conditioned by history." 1
1 John Stratton Hawley (2015), A Storm of Songs: India and the Idea of the Bhakti Movement, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0674187467, pages 1-147, 295-312.
Bhakta219 ( talk) 15:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Your edit request could not be reviewed because it is unclear which page numbers from the provided reference are used to verify the provided claims. When proposing edit requests, it is important to highlight in the text which specific page numbers are being used to source the given statements. The point of an inline citation is to allow the reviewer and readers to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation's note number does not contain page numbers. Note the example below:
INCORRECT
The figures concerning the sun are varied. It's surface temperature has been determined to be 5,778 K. It's radius is 432,169 miles, while its escape velocity (from the surface) is 617.7 km/s. 1.
References
1. Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018. pp. 135-190.
In the example above there is one reference provided, but the claim statements do not indicate on which pages the claims exist. Only a page range is given. Your edit request similarly does not specify which page the claims originate on. This is important when one source gives multiple claims. Each page number of the source must be provided, as shown in the next example below:
CORRECT
The figures concerning the sun are varied. It's surface temperature has been determined to be 5,778 K.[1]:214 It's radius is 432,169 miles,[1]:79 while its escape velocity (from the surface) is 617.7 km/s.[1]:177
References
1. Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018.
In the example above, the individual page numbers where the claims exist are perfectly clear, as they display immediately after the reference note number, separated by a colon (:). Kindly reformulate your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example above, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. Page numbers may be added using the {{
RP}}
template. Regards,
Spintendo 22:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Why can't Bhaktis leave the Sikh alone? Monothesim is the prime beyond all else, that thought is intrinsically not Hindu and not localised to Indian pantheism. Getting a bit tired of these wiki edit wellas, (an agnostic ex jatt sikh). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.70.185 ( talk) 04:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hindutva fueled plagiarism, dont ask me "how" extremist. These sources are dead links, and contain nothing of "scholars claim Sikhism's is influenced and apart of the bhakti movement". dont make me log in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:DE0:2F98:192A:65DD:F6D2:36A5 ( talk) 10:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I have replaced occurrences of "postmodern scholars" with "contemporary scholars". (There were 3 such occurrences, one in introduction, and two in section 9, including section heading: "Controversy and doubts in postmodern scholarship.")
I made the edit because none of the mentioned scholars (Pechilis, Biardeau, Miller, Hawley, Pollock, and Guy) are "postmodern," nor does postmodernism figure in their work on the Bhakti movement. A citation is necessary to link this scholarship with postmodernism. Otherwise the linking of the postmodernism article is irrelevant / distracting.
-- Smrti.manava ( talk) 13:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 |
There are a lot more and older bhakti movements than chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Andries 14:22, 31 January 2004 (UTC)
How about we re-name this article to [Bhakti (History)] or [History of the Bhakti movements] or similar? Much of the information included is chronological rather than philosophical and it would then make sense as a partner-page to the other bhakti articles. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Headings in this article, and to a lesser extent content, seem largely Vaishnava. comes across as undue weight. -- Simon D M ( talk) 18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is vague, not to the point, incomplete and small emphasis on Bhakti Movement.
Bhakti Movement was started during the period of Delhi Sultanate.It's earliest known exponent is Ramanuja, who flourished in 12th century
others included Nimbarka, Madhava , Ramanand , Chaitanya who is considered one of the greatest saint of Bhakti movement, Namadeva , and Kabir. The founder of Sikhism , Guru Nanak is also considered to be a part of this movement. Ajjay ( talk) 09:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the introduction of Bhakti movement which states that "Islamic rulers were pressing public to convert religion from Hindu to Islam" - to this I have added citation needed because there is difference between political tyranny & socio-religious developments. Though I do not deny inter-relation between two, but Bhakti movement was not just response to that tyranny. It has very larger background - like opposition to rituals, social division on caste lines & Brahman dominance. So, it is inappropriate to call Bhakti movement as response to Islamic politcal tyranny which in fact defeats the whole purpose of Bhakti movement. Please refer Bipin Chandra's India's Struggle for Independence book (Chapter - Socio-religious reforms) this chapter clearly rejects concept that Medieval Muslim tyranny was anyway related to religious reforms. Javalkoti ( talk) 16:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Puthandu nothing to do with hinduism as it is celebarated by all tamils regardless of religion.Eventhough tamil calendar is influenced by sanskrit currently the new years date has been changed from chithirai to thai following Thiruvallivar andu Tamil calendar(unsanskritised) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.140.43.10 ( talk) 14:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why Puthandu is a topic here (I didn't see any mention of it in the article or elsewhere on the talk page). Anyway, Muthuvel Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, used his political influence to change the New Year. Soon after Jayalalithaa became the Chief Minister in 2011, the date was changed back to the original one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghav Sharman ( talk • contribs) 10:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
It claims two times in the article, that Bhakti was originated in Tamil Nadu. But its still unclear to me how this statement is made. Per my understanding it started In Maharashtra in the Varkari Sect. or in other words the "Bhagwat" samaj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.230.84 ( talk) 07:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Most contribute the birth of the Bhakti movement to the poets known as Alvars and Nayanars (Vishnu and Shiva devotees respectively) who came from Tamil Nadu around 500-900 A.D.. References abound for this. Arguably, certain upanishads describe bhakti that predate this such as the Shvetashvatara Upanishad which explicitly uses the word bhakti and "was presumably composed in the Maurya period (4th or 3rd century BCE)" Iṣṭa Devata ( talk) 16:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The Rama Bhakti section contains two pargaraphs about Ramananda (good) but then goes off on Krishna Bhakti, and turns into a list of all the Vedanta schools and their founders, which is not about Rama Bhakti, and barely about bhakti at all, but more about vedanta ontology. If no one objects I will do a massive purge of this section. Iṣṭa Devata ( talk) 15:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bhakti movement's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Flood":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Although there is nothing wrong with the original meaning of the word " cult", its current popular use and implications are mostly negative. I corrected one chance instance of "cult" to "movement" but then I made a search for "Bhakti cult" [2] and found that the use of this term is frequent. I do not feel adequate to go about making such changes on my own, so I bring this issue up here in case there is a consensus to effect such changes. Hoverfish Talk 09:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
No need to change this, this is the real meaning of cult. The negative associations we have with the word are only a secondary meaning that doesn't matter when discussing religious movements academically. Look up sect vs cult. A great book that mentions this difference is A History of Modern Yoga by Elizabeth DeMichelis. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 17:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
There are way too many specific references people put in to the header to suggest certain figures are prominent. Ramprasad Sen and the Virashaiva movement should be mentioned in the article body, not the header as neither one of them is a particularly universal or typifying example of the bhakti movement. If any Bhakti writer should be mentioned, it is Tulsidas or other definitive bhakti sants like the alvars. I'm removing these mentions, but welcome someone to reinsert them into relevant paragraphs in the body of the article. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 16:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Since the Virashaivism was added back, I've made a new section for it outside of the header. Hopefully to the liking of User:Mohanbhan Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 19:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Iṣṭa Devatā: Having a separate section for Vira Shaivism is fine but since it started in 12th century, (it actually started in 11th century, the first poet of the Virashaiva movement was Jedara Dasimayya), and is older than Rama and Vaishnava bhakthi movements, it should be the first section. Also I didn't start an "edit war" nor did I simply "revert" your edit. You can see that I retained your changes and simply added the paragraph on Vira Shaivism. - Mohanbhan ( talk) 01:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:BRD, when you make an edit it is reverted to the previous version and then the discussion takes place--this is the BRD cycle. The suggestion was to place Vira Shaivism as the first section since it started in 12th (11th century). You can claim that Advaita was part of Bhakti and add it to the article but you will have to support it with WP:RS. - Mohanbhan ( talk) 02:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The BRD cycle is, by its own description, optional. My edit wasn't bold. Copy pasting the paragraph back in the wrong place (the middle of an unrelated paragraph) was bold. Either way we're going way off point: I just thought it was a little aggressive to change it so sloppily. I am not trying to make any claims about advaita and bhakti, it was just an example of bhakti that precedes the founding of virashaivism. I am just saying you're claim on this talk page about vira shaivism being older than other forms of bhakti doesn't make any sense. If bhakti is from the seventh century, and lingayatism is from the twelfth, in what way is lingayatism the original bhakti or older than the alvars or rama bhakti? If an example is going to be spelled out in massive detail in the intro, it needs to typify the bhakti movement or be the origin of it or it should be its own section (or page). And I made it clear, I'm not trying to put any group 'first', advaita or vira. I'm just saying vira is clearly not the first bhakti movement nor a definitive example of a bhakti movement (really it's a movement that incorporates bhakti, but is not defined by it) and any changes based on that notion of preeminence would need to be backed up with references that don't exist on this page (or any other, because it's a far out sectarian claim). So if you want to push a lingayat agenda on this page, bring some evidence because it's looking mighty POV. Otherwise I'd just as soon drop this debate unless you have some practical changes you want to discuss. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 04:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
This article has had a WP:V request banner since 2013. A major surgery on this article is long overdue, which I am now doing. Please feel free to re-add text, but with reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 14:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Denomination | Sub-schools | Scholar-sant | Key works |
Saivism | [add] | [add] | [add] |
Vaishnavism | [add] | [add] | [add] |
Shaktism | [add] | [add] | [add] |
Smartism | [add] | [add] | [add] |
Sikhism | [add] | [add] | [add] |
[add] | [add] | [add] | [add] |
@ Jujhar.pannu: Do you have sources for what you mentioned in your edit comment, "Prior to Sikhism aspects of Shakti were always considered opposite and opposing to the concepts of Bhakti"? If you do, please provide. Otherwise, this reads like your OR/personal wisdom/personal prejudice. Perhaps if you provide a reliable source, I can review it and get back. You "Removed image is alternative Sikh practice", but per WP:NPOV, we can't take sides in disputes inside Sikhism. On rest of your edits, please do not remove reliable sources as you did here. If you have other sources which suggest "God is shown as both Nirgun and Sargan in Sikhi", please provide and we can add it as well. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 02:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jujhar.pannu: How about we make the following change,
References
I reviewed Bakhshi or Johar. Where do they say, there is no Bhakti in Sikhism? All they comment on is the idol worship and lamps, which is just one aspect of Bhakti. Bhakti has always been more than that - see the David Lorenzen etc books cited in this article. There is plenty of sources mentioning Jaap, kirtan, Ardas etc. See Nirmal Singh's Searches in Sikhism, page 93 and Darshan Singh's Indian Bhakti Tradition and Sikh Gurus, page 178. Are you okay if we mention kirtan, etc? On Shakti-Bhakti, you have not provided any source, just your personal opinions/wisdom/prejudice. If you read the Devi Mahatmya-related scholarly works, you will find that Shakti-Bhakti were not opposed, as you incorrectly allege, but they were synergistic/ cherished/ harmonious/ practiced together centuries before Sikhism was founded (e.g. see June McDaniel published by Oxford University Press, Vasudha Narayanan published by State University of New York Press, etc). Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 19:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Jujhar.pannu: I looked into more sources, as I promised above. I propose that we also summarize the Bhakti-content on Sikhism from the following,
I will give you a few days to review and comment. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 15:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
@ Jujhar.pannu: I reverted to the old stable version, per WP:BRD, a while ago, while I awaited your comments. Now, given the sources which are in the article and the new ones I have provided above (after my revert a few days ago), let us together work on a revised version for the Sikhism section. I will shortly propose a revised version, on this talk page. If you would like to suggest, please do. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 22:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
David Lorenzen states that Bhakti is an important idea within 15th-century religion Sikhism, just like Hinduism. [2] In Sikhism, Bhakti of nirguni (devotion to divine without attributes) is emphasized, [2] [3] [4] but it accepts both nirguni and saguni forms of the divine. [5]
The scripture of Sikhism is based on the hymns and teachings of the Sikh gurus, and thirteen Hindu and two Muslim bhagats. [6] The thirteen Hindu bhagats whose teachings were entered into the text, were poet saints of the Bhakti movement, and included Ramananda, Namdev, Pipa, Ravidas, Beni, Bhikhan, Dhanna, Jayadeva, Parmanand, Sadhana, Sain, Surdas, Trilochan, while the two Muslim bhagats were Kabir and Sufi saint Farid. [7] [8] [9] Most of the 5,894 hymns in the Sikh scripture came from the Sikh gurus, and rest from the Bhagats. The three highest contributions in the Sikh scripture were from Bhagat Kabir (292 hymns), Bhagat Farid (134 hymns), and Bhagat Namdev (60 hymns). [10] Some of the Bhagats whose teachings were included in the Guru Granth Sahib, were Hindu bhakti poets born before the birth of Guru Nanak – the founder of Sikhism. While Sikhism incorporated hymns from the Bhakti poet saints, it was not simply an extension of the Bhakti movement and Sikhism disagreed with some of the views of Kabir and Ravidas. [11]
Guru Nanak, the first Sikh Guru and the founder of Sikhism, was a Bhakti saint. [12] He taught, states Jon Mayled, that the most important form of worship is Bhakti. [13] Nam-simran – the repetition of God's name – is an important Bhakti practice in Sikhism. [14] [15] [16] Guru Arjan, in his Sukhmani Sahib, recommended the path of loving devotion to God. [17] The Sikh scripture Guru Granth Sahib includes suggestions for a Sikh to perform daily Bhakti. [18] [13][note 1: place here verses 305(16) - 306(2) into notes section with cite]
References
@ Jujhar.pannu: Please suggest changes, with WP:RS to improve the above version. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 23:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jujhar.pannu: If you feel the image over-emphasizes the minor sects within Sikhism, I am okay with removing the image, and moving the sentence in the caption into the main article, for WP:NPOV. As Joshua Jonathan, Chrisw80 and I have previously discussed, we need to keep the Ravidassia religion perspective when we discuss Sikhism. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 23:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
References
This article change is still incorrect on many fronts. Can you please provide any reference from the bhakti movement that considers doing arti a form of bhakti? The teachings from the Sikh perspective are very little and you removed my referenced content without mention so I added it back. Jujhar.pannu ( talk) 07:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, dear all. Interesting discussion which I am glad to be part of. Sharing some points related to the first sentence of the proposal "Some scholars call Sikhism a Bhakti sect of Indian traditions.[88][89]". After reading both these references, I found [88] says
" and (Sikhism) is often described as a bhakti sect by many Hindu and western writers. Sikhs dislike this description, which seems to question the distinctiveness of the revelation received by the Gurus."
In [89], it appears authors try to link Sikhism to a hypothetical "Bhakti religion" and that's about it. I think we should represent the reference [88] accurately. Right now, only the initial bit of the quote I shared above has been picked and this provides incomplete context. Rather, complete context needs to be provided for the readers. Looking forward to nice discussions. Revkh ( talk) 09:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi again, looking at the Raj Pruthi reference now. In the article we have "according to Raj Pruthi, it (Sikhism) was not simply an extension of the Bhakti movement". The complete and accurate quote however is as follows
"Sikhism should not be looked at as simply an extension of the Bhakti movement but as a new movement entirely."
Appeal again that the quote be included in full to provide complete information to readers. As you can see, I am most interested in ensuring that the sources are represented accurately without any cherry-picking. Revkh ( talk) 09:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jujhar.pannu: I dug more into Raj Pruthi source, and learn that his education is in law. The Pruthi book has been published by a recently founded private publisher which advertises for WP:SPS-type publications. FWIW, Pruthi's comparison of Christianity and Sikhism, Buddhism and Sikhism, etc is WP:FRINGE-y. The book is inconsistent internally, such as on Ahimsa. On page 6, states Pruthi, Nanak supports and explains Ahimsa. But on page 203 Pruthi declares "Sikh Guru's (sic) did not believe in this Hindu practice". Pruthi book has no scholarly reviews that I could find, and does not seem like a WP:RS. I will give you a few days to collect and present evidence that Pruthi source meets wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 18:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Kigman fs: Really? @Jujhar.pannu: I am concerned with the editorial oversight and the process the publisher uses to select authors per WP:RS guidelines. Beyond the publisher, Pruthi has a law degree, no peer reviewed religion-related journal articles I could find, and his views on Christianity/ Buddhism/ Hinduism/ Islam / etc versus Sikhism are strange and questionable. His book is internally inconsistent on Ahimsa, and raises questions. You need to find a better source. If Pruthi views are mainstream, you should be able to find multiple WP:RS publications by professor(s) or other well recognized scholars stating the same. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 00:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jujhar.pannu: Perhaps, we should discussion this item by item. Please explain why you are deleting the following sourced content,
Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 03:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
References
@Jujhar.pannu: Please explain why you are deleting the following sourced content,
Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 04:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
References
I did not delete that. Jujhar.pannu ( talk) 04:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
It is incorrect to suggest or imply that Shakti-Bhakti was unique to Sikhism. It existed many centuries before Sikhism was founded, and one of its central text is Devi Mahatmya. [1] The text and a related goddess-tradition existed in 1st-millennium CE, and thrived before the start of Sikhism. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 23:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
References
@Jujhar.pannu: Please provide quote from the source for the following...
Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 05:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi RexxS, thank you. The complete quote
Shakti in Sikhism is thus a part and parcel of Bhakti because the user of Shakti was required to work—even sacrifice, to see the will of God operating without any let and hindrance. In this sense Sikh Shakti is suffused with devotion to God because if it is not so, the Shakti (power) would turn out to be a power of a tyrant and not of God. A true Gurmukh or Gyani is the embodiment of Bhakti and Shakti.
According to Bhatt Kalsar, all the Gurus right from Guru Nanak to Guru Arian Dev had lived the life of Raj Jogi. Guru Hargobind underscored this point by wearing two swords representing Miri (temporal) and Piri (spiritual) aspect of Guru's office, which were the same as Bhakti and Shakti. Guru Tegh Bahadur, therefore, besides remembrance of God received military training. After he was elevated to guruship, he travelled widely and in course of his travels conducted himself in the manner of a chief, fond of horse-riding, wearing arms with the Kalghi on his turban, followed by a large retinue, just as his warrior father used to do.9S According to Dr. Fauja Singh, "Bhakti was to be continued with Shakti to offer full view of the Guru's philosophy of life."
Would you agree/disagree this proves that in Sikhism Shakti and Bhakti go hand in hand. Basically, there is no Bhakti without Shakti and vice-versa. For the Bhakti being higher than Shakti, Mr. Pannu likely says so since the flag for Bhakti at Amritsar Darbar Sahib is higher than the one for Shakti. All Sikhs know this. Revkh ( talk) 07:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, posting this to seek opinions from you all on this post I made earlier.
Hi, dear all. Interesting discussion which I am glad to be part of. Sharing some points related to the first sentence of the proposal "Some scholars call Sikhism a Bhakti sect of Indian traditions.[88][89]". After reading both these references, I found [88] says" and (Sikhism) is often described as a bhakti sect by many Hindu and western writers. Sikhs dislike this description, which seems to question the distinctiveness of the revelation received by the Gurus."
In [89], it appears authors try to link Sikhism to a hypothetical "Bhakti religion" and that's about it. I think we should represent the reference [88] accurately. Right now, only the initial bit of the quote I shared above has been picked and this provides incomplete context. Rather, complete context needs to be provided for the readers. Looking forward to nice discussions. Revkh (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi again, looking at the Raj Pruthi reference now. In the article we have "according to Raj Pruthi, it (Sikhism) was not simply an extension of the Bhakti movement". The complete and accurate quote however is as follows
"Sikhism should not be looked at as simply an extension of the Bhakti movement but as a new movement entirely."
Appeal again that the quote be included in full to provide complete information to readers. As you can see, I am most interested in ensuring that the sources are represented accurately without any cherry-picking. Revkh (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
All, and @ RexxS:, please do share if you agree or not. Thanks ! Revkh ( talk) 08:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
"More specifically, all its sects and currents were heavily influenced in their origins ... by ... the Bhagavad-gita and the Bhagavad-Purana."(page 1). I can see no reason why for example his assertion that
"Historically, Sikh religion derives from this nirgunicurrent of bhakti religion although it has established a conscious identity as a separate religion"(page 1) should not inform our text, as it seems to expound quite succinctly the relationship between the bhakti movement and Sikhism.
This used to be a half-decent article, in the sense that it could be read by a layperson. It is now chock-a-block with obscure technical terms, references to people whose authority/expertise is not explained, elements that seem almost irrelevant, and vague phrasing such as "some scholars". Alas, this seems to be quite a common trait when Ms Sarah Welch gets involved - is there any way we can simplify the thing? I am not an unintelligent person and I struggle to understand it. - Sitush ( talk) 08:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Grr. And another common event when MSW becomes involved is a total disregard for Indian English in favour of US English, and of existing citation styles. I've lost count of how many times I have mentioned this and still they carry on their merry way. It isn't difficult. - Sitush ( talk) 08:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request by an editor with a
conflict of interest was declined. The requested edit does not contain page numbers from the given reference. Please provide the page numbers where individual claims exist by using the {{
RP}} function of the citation template. |
Replace: "John Stratton Hawley describes recent scholarship which questions the old theory of Bhakti movement origin and "story of south-moves-north", then states that the movement had multiple origins, mentioning Brindavan in north India as another center.[123] Hawley describes the controversy and disagreements between Indian scholars, quotes Hegde's concern that "Bhakti movement was a reform" theory has been supported by "cherry-picking particular songs from a large corpus of Bhakti literature" and that if the entirety of the literature by any single author such as Basava is considered along with its historical context, there is neither reform nor a need for reform.[77]"
With: "In his book A Storm of Songs John Stratton Hawley shows how the notion of the bhakti movement crystallized in the earlier half of the twentieth century, giving special consideration to the dialogue between Hindi and English sources. Yet he also shows that the principal features of this narrative are older. Hawley draws attention to the paradigm of the four sampradays (orders or teaching traditions), which Nabhadas developed in his Bhaktamal in about 1600 C.E. This paradigm for understanding how southern Vaishnavism made its way northward was adopted and elaborated by various sectarian communities in north India under the pressure of political considerations in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Most people know the “south to north” story of how Bhakti infused itself into Indian life from the picture that is given in the Bhagavata Mahatmya, a text that praises the glories of the Bhagavata Purana. That text too turns out to be relatively recent—and again northern. The earliest manuscripts for the Bhagavata Mahatmya come from the early 18th century; they appear only in the north.
Keeping all of this in mind, Hawley asks what can now be said about the all-India bhakti movement narrative—very sort of story that has been told elsewhere in this essay. One obvious possibility—a path others have followed—is to disaggregate the bhakti movement (or “trend”—see above) into smaller, regionally coherent bhakti movements. Alternatively one could jettison the “movement” metaphor altogether and think in terms of an India-wide “bhakti network.” Hawley is not saying that there is no sense to the classical “south to north” narrative—there may indeed be—but the narrative itself is deeply conditioned by history." 1
1 John Stratton Hawley (2015), A Storm of Songs: India and the Idea of the Bhakti Movement, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0674187467, pages 1-147, 295-312.
Bhakta219 ( talk) 15:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Your edit request could not be reviewed because it is unclear which page numbers from the provided reference are used to verify the provided claims. When proposing edit requests, it is important to highlight in the text which specific page numbers are being used to source the given statements. The point of an inline citation is to allow the reviewer and readers to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation's note number does not contain page numbers. Note the example below:
INCORRECT
The figures concerning the sun are varied. It's surface temperature has been determined to be 5,778 K. It's radius is 432,169 miles, while its escape velocity (from the surface) is 617.7 km/s. 1.
References
1. Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018. pp. 135-190.
In the example above there is one reference provided, but the claim statements do not indicate on which pages the claims exist. Only a page range is given. Your edit request similarly does not specify which page the claims originate on. This is important when one source gives multiple claims. Each page number of the source must be provided, as shown in the next example below:
CORRECT
The figures concerning the sun are varied. It's surface temperature has been determined to be 5,778 K.[1]:214 It's radius is 432,169 miles,[1]:79 while its escape velocity (from the surface) is 617.7 km/s.[1]:177
References
1. Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018.
In the example above, the individual page numbers where the claims exist are perfectly clear, as they display immediately after the reference note number, separated by a colon (:). Kindly reformulate your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example above, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. Page numbers may be added using the {{
RP}}
template. Regards,
Spintendo 22:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Why can't Bhaktis leave the Sikh alone? Monothesim is the prime beyond all else, that thought is intrinsically not Hindu and not localised to Indian pantheism. Getting a bit tired of these wiki edit wellas, (an agnostic ex jatt sikh). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.70.185 ( talk) 04:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hindutva fueled plagiarism, dont ask me "how" extremist. These sources are dead links, and contain nothing of "scholars claim Sikhism's is influenced and apart of the bhakti movement". dont make me log in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:DE0:2F98:192A:65DD:F6D2:36A5 ( talk) 10:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I have replaced occurrences of "postmodern scholars" with "contemporary scholars". (There were 3 such occurrences, one in introduction, and two in section 9, including section heading: "Controversy and doubts in postmodern scholarship.")
I made the edit because none of the mentioned scholars (Pechilis, Biardeau, Miller, Hawley, Pollock, and Guy) are "postmodern," nor does postmodernism figure in their work on the Bhakti movement. A citation is necessary to link this scholarship with postmodernism. Otherwise the linking of the postmodernism article is irrelevant / distracting.
-- Smrti.manava ( talk) 13:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)