![]() | 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. |
The following content (indicated by bolding) has recently been added to the article lede:
Within Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, as well historically by alvars and other early adepts such as Bilvanmangala Krishna is worshipped as the source of all other avatars (including Vishnu).
The cited references are:
However the references only seem to suggest that Krihna was worshipped ardently by some Alvars, and was the subject of the medieval composition Krishna-Karnamrita, but do not mention Krishna as the source of all avatars, as is being claimed. Can we discuss this here on the talk page to reach some consensus, and if need find appropriate sources ? Abecedare ( talk) 20:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
O people, please hear of this treatment for the disease of birth and death! It is the name of Kṛṣṇa. Recommended by Yājñavalkya and other expert yogīs steeped in wisdom, this boundless, eternal inner light is the best medicine, for when drunk it bestows complete and final liberation. Just drink it! [1]
— Kulasekhara, Mukunda Mala Stotra, translation by Satsvarupa dasa Goswami
What in the world are you talking about? The Alvars ARE Sri Sampradayam! What is your point? What are you trying to prove with what you wrote above in context with the alwars? The fact remains that the Alwars ARE Sri Sampradayam. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA ( talk) 08:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to have it from first and secondary sources on Alvars - did any of Alvars EVER said that all alvars belong to the sampradaya? Did any scholars ever say such a nonsense?. As far as I can see all five main traditions are inspired and resulted from Alvars. As part of the legacy of the Alvars, five Vaishnava philosophical traditions (sampradayas) have developed.Mittal, S. G. R. Thursby (2006). Religions of South Asia: An Introduction. Routledge. Page 27."As part of the legacy of the Alvars, five Vaisnava (devotion to Visnu) philosophical traditions (sampradaya) emerged that were based on the teachings of ..."
See also [1] at least some Alvars existed before the concept of Sri Sampradaya or Nathamunis theory. On the other hand Sri claims that they belong to it, did any early Alvar ever said something to this effect? Wikidās ॐ 09:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Credit of giving popular base to the Bhagavata cult goes to the twelve Vaishnava saints, collectively know as Alvars who flourished in the Tamil country between the fith and ninth centuries. They composed beautiful songs, Prabandham, describing the eventful childhood of Krishna including this romance with the Gopa girls
— Chapter:Krishna and His Cult Krishna Theatre in India Page 8, M.L. Varalpande, 2002
There is evidence that worship of Vasudeva and not Vishnu came at the beginning of Vaishnavism. This earliest phase was established from the sixth to the fifth centuries BCE at the time of Panini, who in his Astadhyayi explained the word vasudevaka as a bhakta, devotee, of Vasudeva. Another cult which flourished with the decline of Vedism was centred on Krishna, the deified tribal hero and religious leader of the Yadavas. The Vrsnis and Yadavas came closer together, resulting in the merging of Vasudeva and Krishna, This was as early as the fourth century BCE according to evidence in Megasthenes and in the Arthasastra of Kautilya. Vasudeva-Krishna liberates the throne of Mathura from his evil kinsman Kamsa, travels to the city of Dvaraka on the Arabian Sea to establish a dynasty, and in the Mahabharata he counsels his cousins the Pandavas in their battle with the Kauravas. This then took sectarian form as the Pancaratra or Bhagavata religion. A tribe of ksatriyas, warriors, called the Satvata, were bhagavatas and were seen by the Greek writer Megasthenes at the end of the fourth century BCE. This sect then combined with the cult of Narayana, a demiurge god-creator who later became one of the names of Vishnu. Soon after the start of the Common Era, the Abhiras or cowherds of a foreign tribe, contributed Gopala Krishna, the young Krishna, who was adopted by the Abhiras and worked as a cowherd and flirted with the cowherdesses. Only as a mature young man did he return to Mathura and slay Kamsa. The Vasudeva, Krishna, and Gopala cults became integrated through new legends into Greater Krishnaism, the second and most outstanding phase of Vaishnavism. Being non-Vedic, Krishnaism then started to affiliate with Vedism so that the orthodox would find it acceptable. Vishnu of the Rg Veda was assimilated into Krishnaism and became the supreme God who incarnates whenever necessary to save the world. Krishna became one of the avataras of Vishnu. In the eighth century CE the bhakti of Vaishnavism came into contact with Shankara's Advaita doctrine of spiritual monism and world-illusion. This philosophy was considered destructive of bhakti and important opposition in South India came from Ramanuja in the eleventh century and Madhva in the fifteenth century. Ramanuja stressed Vishnu as Narayana and built on the bhakti tradition of the Alvars, poet-saints of South India from the sixth to the ninth centuries (see Shri Vaishnavas). In North India there were new Vaishnava movements: Nimbarka in the fourteenth century with the cult of Radha, Krishna's favourite cowgirl (see Nimavats); Ramananda and the cult of Rama in the same century (see Ramanandis); Kabir in the fifteenth century, whose god is Rama (see Kabirpanthis); Vallabha in the sixteenth century with the worship of the boy Krishna and Radha (see Vallabhas); and Caitanya in the same century with his worship of the grown-up Krishna and Radha (see Gaudiya Vaishnavas). In the Maratha country poet-saints such as Namdev and Tukaram from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries worshipped Vishnu in the form of Vithoba of Pandharpur (see Vitthalas).
See: [2] Wikidās ॐ 08:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW The above is a quote from hiltar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/devot/vaish.html and the guy is not a Gaudia. Hope this helps...
There is plenty of archeological evidence to prove that Vasudeva-Yadava was worshiped way before Visnu. Wikidās ॐ 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Zeuspitar, one answer is given to you by Hari-bhakti-vilāsa (1.73), wherein it is stated:
yas tu nārāyaṇaṁ devaṁ brahma-rudrādi-daivataiḥ samatvenaiva vīkṣeta sa pāṣaṇḍī bhaved dhruvam
Its written by a prominent son of Sri Vaisnava Srirangam priest who studed Vyakarana-kavya, Alamkara, and Vedanta, and became an expert in the said sastras. He also acquired knowledge of Bhakti-sastra under his uncle Prabodhananda Sarasvati a prominent scholar of Sri Ranga-ksetra.
The said father of the acarya Veṅkaṭa Bhaṭṭa onces said, “Lord Kṛṣṇa and Lord Nārāyaṇa are one and the same, but the pastimes of Kṛṣṇa are more relishable due to their sportive nature?"
To this he was answered: “Since Kṛṣṇa and Nārāyaṇa are the same personality, Lakṣmī’s association with Kṛṣṇa does not break her vow of chastity. Rather, it was in great fun that the goddess of fortune wanted to associate with Lord Kṛṣṇa.”
Veṅkaṭa Bhaṭṭa continued, “‘According to transcendental realization, there is no difference between the forms of Nārāyaṇa and Kṛṣṇa. Yet in Kṛṣṇa there is a special transcendental attraction due to the conjugal mellow, and consequently He surpasses Nārāyaṇa. This is the conclusion of transcendental mellows.’ “The goddess of fortune considered that her vow of chastity would not be damaged by her relationship with Kṛṣṇa. Rather, by associating with Kṛṣṇa she could enjoy the benefit of the rāsa dance.” Veṅkaṭa Bhaṭṭa further explained, “Mother Lakṣmī, the goddess of fortune, is also an enjoyer of transcendental bliss; therefore if she wanted to enjoy herself with Kṛṣṇa, what fault is there? Why are You joking so about this?” Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, “I know that there is no fault on the part of the goddess of fortune, but still she could not enter into the rāsa dance. We hear this from the revealed scriptures. “‘When Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa was dancing with the gopīs in the rāsa-līlā, the gopīs were embraced around the neck by the Lord’s arms. This transcendental favor was never bestowed upon the goddess of fortune or the other consorts in the spiritual world. Nor was such a thing ever imagined by the most beautiful girls in the heavenly planets, girls whose bodily luster and aroma exactly resemble the beauty and fragrance of lotus flowers. And what to speak of worldly women, who may be very, very beautiful according to material estimation?’ This is a verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.47.60) Hope this reference from Bhagavatam helps. Wikidās ॐ wrote this reply to the nice Sri Vaisnava at 20:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Note for Wikidas and Zeuspitar: Please remember that wikipedia talk pages are not a forum to discuss subject of the article. Unless there is a specific proposal for adding/modifying content in the Krishna article, along with supporting references I suggest the above discussion be taken off this talk page, and ideally to an appropriate yahoo (or other) discussion forum. Abecedare ( talk) 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Based on the above reference, and because Alvars normally fall under the tradition of Sri Sampradaya we can change the above paragraph to:
Within Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the Nimbarka Sampradaya and Vallabha Sampradaya Krishna is worshipped as the source of all avatars (including Vishnu).
Wikidās ॐ 10:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link)Wikidas,
dab (𒁳) 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks that gives some 'definition' on the above sources. I just presented ONE of a few possible views. I firmly believe that its if you have a few contradicting views, that good articles are born. Not when you just accept some view as a final view. Very useful comments indeed. Wikidās ॐ 08:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
As you have suggested I wanted to discuss your revert on [3]. Maybe you can spell it out for us please. Not that I insist that it should be there, but its a valid addition of the meaning of the word. In Sanskrit word very often taken apart when meaning is described. Wikidās ॐ 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize this question was asked here too. I just answered it on my talk page and will copy the answer below. Ism, to answer your question: I have no problem with the Beck reference itself; rest is explained below. Abecedare ( talk) 00:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This follows Wikidas's addition of 'colour' to heading of the etymology section. This is correct in that the passage currently discusses his colour, but in lumping together etymology and colour is not exactly logical. Meanwhile, missing from the article is what seems to me to be at least as significant topic as that of the 'performing arts'. This is that of art and iconography showing Krishna; which could include the passages discussing his colour. I've written a first draft, based entirely on memory and without looking up any references.
Krishna is generally shown as dark-skinned child, as a boy, or as a youthful man. In many modern representations he is shown as being blue skinned, like many other deities of Hinduism.
Images of him as a child or young boy are common. In many of these he is shown with his foster parents, or carrying out one of his childhood exploits. (image)
Images of him with the gopis of Vrindabana are among the most common. (image)
As a boy or man he he is typcially shown in a characteristic relaxed pose, playing the flute, often with the villagers of Vrindaban. The association of him with the flute is one of the most common. (reference to music, e.g. raga Kalyani). In these scenes of him at Vrindabana, he is often shown with cattle, emphasising his position as 'the cowherd'.
The scenes on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, notably where he addresses Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita are also well known. In these he is often shown with god-like characteristics of Hindu religious art; such as multiple arms or heads, denoting power, and attributes of Vishnu, such as the chakra. (image)
Representations of him in temples may have him standing in an upright, formal pose, hands resting on hips. Another common representation shows him with his brother Balabhadra and sister Subhadra. (image)
It seems to me also that the names section could do with a minor expansion to discuss some his other better known names, especially those associated with his primary characteristics discussed in the article; 1. the cowherd Govinda, Gopala, 2. Vaasudeva; 3. complexion, Shyama, 4. Jaganatha.
Imc ( talk) 17:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
How is this ref [4] for the statement "The Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition interprets Krishna as all-attractive, based on a verse from Mahabharata that is quoted in Chaitanya Charitamrita."-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz, I copyedited the section a couple of days back, and the sentence you quote was a shortened version of the two sentences, "The Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition explains another meaning of the name Krishna as being “all-attractive” within the context of the bhakti perspective. This is justified by an interpretation of a verse in the Mahābhārata, as given in the Chaitanya Charitamrita." But I didn't check if the earlier content was actually supported by the reference, which as you say, it isn't. I think unless a reliable secondary citation is forthcoming, at least the second part of the sentence should be removed. Abecedare ( talk) 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just had my removal of Prabhupada's translation of something from this reverted - [5]. It seems to me that the Brahma Samhita is itself a rather esoteric work, and care needs to be taken that it not be treated as a primary or reliable source for all aspects of Hinduism. This applies even more so given the emphasis (still in the article) on particular Vaishnava schools and teachings. Imc ( talk) 17:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check date values in: |year=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link) p. 167: "I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord. Who is adept in playing on His flute, with blooming eyes like lotus petals with Head decked with peakock feathers with Figure of beauty with the hue of blue clouds, and His unique Lovliness charming millions of cupids."Krishna's name means "the all-attractive One"
Here are a few sources of many that confirm this. If you need more sources, or if none of these sources count as a "good source" let me know, I have millions of sources I could give you, and one of them is bound to be "acceptable". Thank You.
http://www.krishna.com/node/590
http://www.nyu.edu/clubs/krishnabhakti/faq.html
http://www.afn.org/~centennl/prabhupd.htm
http://www.dhirashanta.com/hindu_resources.htm
http://store.mas-india.com/krishnapendant.html
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/10/26/13/en3
http://www.hansadutta.com/KIRTAN/k1.html
http://www.hansadutta.com/KIRTAN/k1.html
http://hkwd.tripod.com/philo.htm
http://www.sda-archives.com/course/B/B26.html
http://www.sda-archives.com/course/W/W14.html
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/billyskank/26
http://www.iskcon.co.uk/newcastle/krsna_page3.html
http://www.krishna.com/node/118
http://www.sspteam.com/html/initiatives/text-active/pse-society/welcome-mat/hints-tips.html
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/bhaktiyoga-5.htm
http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/445/1/ISKCONs-Purpose/
http://www.iskcon.com/education/theology/6.htm
http://preaching.krishna.org/Articles/2004/04/004.html
http://www.utahkrishnas.com/main/page.asp?id=503
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/sb/10/26/13/
http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/8/139/en3
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/asource-09.html Maldek ( talk) 02:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
a scholarly dictionary of Sanskrit, perhaps?
dab
(𒁳)
16:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Further to this edit - [6] which states that 'some authors' (R G Bhandarkar, spelt wrong) suggest that the Krishna draksha in the Rigveda refers to the deity. The authority for the quotation is a book from Sunil Bhattacharya. The latter only mentions Bhandarkar in order to disagree with him, with detailed reasons. Without the direct quote I don't feel it is reasonable to add this; Bhandarkar may have been speculating. Imc ( talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The quote in question is where they disagree about (apparent Govardhan pastime):
Im not suggesting mentioning in full, but it can be mentioned, as well as the other names Krishna is mentioned in the Vedas proper. Wikidās ॐ 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
And, again, I am repeating myself...this guy does not know what he is saying! He doesnt know if he is coming or going! He uses erroneous references that people have told him over 10 times that they are not reliable! People are PRAISING him for his edits! Look on his discussion page. And, he is combative about his fantasy, delusional cult ideas. Every thing he does is with an iskcon group flavor and slant. It will take a long time to change his edits. And, at least 7 editors can say what I am saying is true. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA ( talk) 09:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikidās is clearly editing in good faith, but as clearly he has no idea what he is doing. He is not pulling his own weight, so to speak, creating an overhead of other editors needing to babysit him. This isn't welcome behaviour, but sort of a necessary evil on Wikipedia. This sort of behaviour tends to either improve over time as the editor learns how the system works, or deteriorate, resulting in a community ban. We'll just have to keep watching and see which way the balance will tilt. dab (𒁳) 10:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The proposal is being discussed at WT:KRISHNA. Please submit your views. Wikidās - ॐ 20:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It has been very quiet here so the article is a good state to get to the GA nomination. There are just a few tags and minor formating of the references that we can do; and following that I suggest nomination for GA, it will stabilize the article even further and compliment the work done. Discussion on it also started at the project page. Wikidās - ॐ 15:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Challenging the statement "In the hymn Vishnu Sahasranama composed by Bhishma in praise of Krishna after the Kurukshetra war, he is also called Rama.", though referenced, is a minority view.
"in praise of Krishna" can be challenged too. Encyclopaedia of Indian literature vol. 5 Published by Sahitya Akademi, (a Reliable source) doesn't even mention Krishna, it says the Vishnu Sahasranama (lit. "thousand names of Vishnu") "extols Vishnu". Other refs are : [7], [8]The text also names all other avatars of Vishnu like Vamana, Varaha inclusive of Rama, [9] [10] as synonyms to Vishnu, but in reality are distinct forms of Vishnu. So "he is also called Rama" is unneccesary. -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 13:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
13, 14 links were not fully visible though link 15 relates Krishna to the Sahasranama. Are Vishnu's thousand names considered as names of Krishna is open to debate. I will support the statement "there should be no mention of Vishnu Sahasranama for this Krishna article". I do not see any point in naming Rama as a name of Krishna, Rama was a separate individual. Rama, Varaha, Trivikrama, Vamana, Krishna are all called as names of Vishnu in Sahasranama; as they are believed to be his avatars or forms. Stressing Rama to be a name of Krishna is UNDUE.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The image from the Japanese temple is misleading. It is that of a Bodisattva and there are other similar images in the temple showing the Bodhisattvas playing various instruments. Check it out on google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.110.12 ( talk) 11:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess this falls outside of copy edit and need to be discussed on the talk page prior to changes. Section on Krishnology is critical to this article and can not be merged into others. Wikidās ॐ 06:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
There's references given for lots of things now, but if they are all well quoted, then they are introducing errors. Errors that in in some cases should be apparent from a simple use of a Sanskrit English dictionary, or in other cases an English dictionary and grammar.
'go' in Sanskrit refers to cattle, that is bulls, cows, and calves. Check a Sanskrit dictionary. Not cows though the word is etymologically related. Cattle is the collective English term. Check an English dictionary, it does not need a reference.
Govinda is often translated as herdsman, but then so is Gopala. The separate meanings of go and vindu are cattle and 'to find'. Check a Sanskrit dictionary.
The article in the English phrase 'tender of the cows' implies that there are specific cows that are being referred to. Without any context to specify these cows, this is just bad English. The phrase is either badly quoted or it is a bad reference. Check an English grammar.
This follows from this edit; [ [15]]
Imc ( talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Monier Williams Dictionary translates Gopala just as a "cowherd" [16] and Govinda as herdsman [17] and Both as Krishna.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 05:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Aslo Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology and Religion, Geography, History and ... - Page 112 by John Dowson translates it as "cowkeeper". Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English splits Govinda as "cows + master" (cowherd), not finder and Gopala as "protector of cows". [18]. Go thus is translated appropriately as Cows. It might be noted that MWSD translates vinda as to find, get. [19] Redtigerxyz ( talk) 05:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
"very beautiful dark-skinned man during his ... " appears to adequately retell the source but if its not "very" then the point is lost and the statement really should be removed. I dispute if just beautiful dark-skinned man describes the object. He is stunning... at least very beautiful. Wikidās ॐ 19:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
If your religious conviction compels you to pester Wikipedia with eulogies on the God(s) of your choice, you should seriously consider reflecting on the strength and purpose of your faith a little while. And the impression as to the maturity and general sanity of your religious community this will inadvertently evoke in uninvolved bystanders. Religion can be something beautiful. It's just that the actual religionists too often go out of their way to distract from this possibility. I suppose that's the difference between mere adherence and actual faith. -- dab (𒁳) 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Eh, screw my point. I was looking beyond... (*assumes embarrased face*) Sorry! BlackPearl14 Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 20:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Granted Krishna is a cousin of the Pandavas - Kunthi is the sister of Vasudevar, the father of Krishna. How come Kauravas be his cousins? Kindly cite references or genealogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VINU ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Krishna is everyone for Christ sakes!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.112.21 ( talk) 12:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The worship of Krishna is part of Vaishnavism, which regards Vishnu as the supreme god and venerates his associated avatars, their consorts, and related saints and teachers. Krishna is especially looked upon as a full manifestation of Vishnu, and as one with Vishnu himself. [2] However the exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu is complex and diverse, [3] where Krishna is considered an independent deity, supreme in its own right. [4]
All Vaishnava traditions recognise Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu; others identify Krishna with Vishnu; while traditions, such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism, [5] [6] Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, regard Krishna as the svayam bhagavan, original form of God, or the Lord himself. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] In the list of the epithets attributed to Krishna, he is described as the 'source of all incarnations' by Rupa Goswami. [12]
This paragraph of the introduction requires an adequate section in the main body of the article explaining the relevant views as per WP:LEAD. As it should be an independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. By the size of the paragraph this issue is probably the most important, thus a prominent section should be created. Wikidās ॐ 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both of you! :) Firstly, don't we all agree the sources (currently in the lead) are very valuable. Secondly, as someone who knows little about Hinduism, I appreciate having notable branches actually named in the text (somewhere). Finally, don't we all agree that the lead should be a summary, and more about Krishna than Vaishnavism? The relationship between Krishna and Vishnu in different traditions is complex, so editors could expand on this into the future were it to have its own section. Moving detailed discussion of Vishnu to the main body would leave more space to summarise key information regarding Krishna in the lead.
Whatever you two work out, thanks for a lot of sources in this article, informative text and a lot of helpful images to illustrate it. Please keep doing your good work. This is a very important article—there are many Krishna devotees; it really needs generous contributors (from any background) to work towards it being featured. Alastair Haines ( talk) 03:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
For his worshippers he is not an avatara in the usual sense, but svayam bhagavan, the Lord himself.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |other=
ignored (|others=
suggested) (
help) p.109
![]() | 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. |
The following content (indicated by bolding) has recently been added to the article lede:
Within Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, as well historically by alvars and other early adepts such as Bilvanmangala Krishna is worshipped as the source of all other avatars (including Vishnu).
The cited references are:
However the references only seem to suggest that Krihna was worshipped ardently by some Alvars, and was the subject of the medieval composition Krishna-Karnamrita, but do not mention Krishna as the source of all avatars, as is being claimed. Can we discuss this here on the talk page to reach some consensus, and if need find appropriate sources ? Abecedare ( talk) 20:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
O people, please hear of this treatment for the disease of birth and death! It is the name of Kṛṣṇa. Recommended by Yājñavalkya and other expert yogīs steeped in wisdom, this boundless, eternal inner light is the best medicine, for when drunk it bestows complete and final liberation. Just drink it! [1]
— Kulasekhara, Mukunda Mala Stotra, translation by Satsvarupa dasa Goswami
What in the world are you talking about? The Alvars ARE Sri Sampradayam! What is your point? What are you trying to prove with what you wrote above in context with the alwars? The fact remains that the Alwars ARE Sri Sampradayam. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA ( talk) 08:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to have it from first and secondary sources on Alvars - did any of Alvars EVER said that all alvars belong to the sampradaya? Did any scholars ever say such a nonsense?. As far as I can see all five main traditions are inspired and resulted from Alvars. As part of the legacy of the Alvars, five Vaishnava philosophical traditions (sampradayas) have developed.Mittal, S. G. R. Thursby (2006). Religions of South Asia: An Introduction. Routledge. Page 27."As part of the legacy of the Alvars, five Vaisnava (devotion to Visnu) philosophical traditions (sampradaya) emerged that were based on the teachings of ..."
See also [1] at least some Alvars existed before the concept of Sri Sampradaya or Nathamunis theory. On the other hand Sri claims that they belong to it, did any early Alvar ever said something to this effect? Wikidās ॐ 09:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Credit of giving popular base to the Bhagavata cult goes to the twelve Vaishnava saints, collectively know as Alvars who flourished in the Tamil country between the fith and ninth centuries. They composed beautiful songs, Prabandham, describing the eventful childhood of Krishna including this romance with the Gopa girls
— Chapter:Krishna and His Cult Krishna Theatre in India Page 8, M.L. Varalpande, 2002
There is evidence that worship of Vasudeva and not Vishnu came at the beginning of Vaishnavism. This earliest phase was established from the sixth to the fifth centuries BCE at the time of Panini, who in his Astadhyayi explained the word vasudevaka as a bhakta, devotee, of Vasudeva. Another cult which flourished with the decline of Vedism was centred on Krishna, the deified tribal hero and religious leader of the Yadavas. The Vrsnis and Yadavas came closer together, resulting in the merging of Vasudeva and Krishna, This was as early as the fourth century BCE according to evidence in Megasthenes and in the Arthasastra of Kautilya. Vasudeva-Krishna liberates the throne of Mathura from his evil kinsman Kamsa, travels to the city of Dvaraka on the Arabian Sea to establish a dynasty, and in the Mahabharata he counsels his cousins the Pandavas in their battle with the Kauravas. This then took sectarian form as the Pancaratra or Bhagavata religion. A tribe of ksatriyas, warriors, called the Satvata, were bhagavatas and were seen by the Greek writer Megasthenes at the end of the fourth century BCE. This sect then combined with the cult of Narayana, a demiurge god-creator who later became one of the names of Vishnu. Soon after the start of the Common Era, the Abhiras or cowherds of a foreign tribe, contributed Gopala Krishna, the young Krishna, who was adopted by the Abhiras and worked as a cowherd and flirted with the cowherdesses. Only as a mature young man did he return to Mathura and slay Kamsa. The Vasudeva, Krishna, and Gopala cults became integrated through new legends into Greater Krishnaism, the second and most outstanding phase of Vaishnavism. Being non-Vedic, Krishnaism then started to affiliate with Vedism so that the orthodox would find it acceptable. Vishnu of the Rg Veda was assimilated into Krishnaism and became the supreme God who incarnates whenever necessary to save the world. Krishna became one of the avataras of Vishnu. In the eighth century CE the bhakti of Vaishnavism came into contact with Shankara's Advaita doctrine of spiritual monism and world-illusion. This philosophy was considered destructive of bhakti and important opposition in South India came from Ramanuja in the eleventh century and Madhva in the fifteenth century. Ramanuja stressed Vishnu as Narayana and built on the bhakti tradition of the Alvars, poet-saints of South India from the sixth to the ninth centuries (see Shri Vaishnavas). In North India there were new Vaishnava movements: Nimbarka in the fourteenth century with the cult of Radha, Krishna's favourite cowgirl (see Nimavats); Ramananda and the cult of Rama in the same century (see Ramanandis); Kabir in the fifteenth century, whose god is Rama (see Kabirpanthis); Vallabha in the sixteenth century with the worship of the boy Krishna and Radha (see Vallabhas); and Caitanya in the same century with his worship of the grown-up Krishna and Radha (see Gaudiya Vaishnavas). In the Maratha country poet-saints such as Namdev and Tukaram from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries worshipped Vishnu in the form of Vithoba of Pandharpur (see Vitthalas).
See: [2] Wikidās ॐ 08:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW The above is a quote from hiltar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/devot/vaish.html and the guy is not a Gaudia. Hope this helps...
There is plenty of archeological evidence to prove that Vasudeva-Yadava was worshiped way before Visnu. Wikidās ॐ 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Zeuspitar, one answer is given to you by Hari-bhakti-vilāsa (1.73), wherein it is stated:
yas tu nārāyaṇaṁ devaṁ brahma-rudrādi-daivataiḥ samatvenaiva vīkṣeta sa pāṣaṇḍī bhaved dhruvam
Its written by a prominent son of Sri Vaisnava Srirangam priest who studed Vyakarana-kavya, Alamkara, and Vedanta, and became an expert in the said sastras. He also acquired knowledge of Bhakti-sastra under his uncle Prabodhananda Sarasvati a prominent scholar of Sri Ranga-ksetra.
The said father of the acarya Veṅkaṭa Bhaṭṭa onces said, “Lord Kṛṣṇa and Lord Nārāyaṇa are one and the same, but the pastimes of Kṛṣṇa are more relishable due to their sportive nature?"
To this he was answered: “Since Kṛṣṇa and Nārāyaṇa are the same personality, Lakṣmī’s association with Kṛṣṇa does not break her vow of chastity. Rather, it was in great fun that the goddess of fortune wanted to associate with Lord Kṛṣṇa.”
Veṅkaṭa Bhaṭṭa continued, “‘According to transcendental realization, there is no difference between the forms of Nārāyaṇa and Kṛṣṇa. Yet in Kṛṣṇa there is a special transcendental attraction due to the conjugal mellow, and consequently He surpasses Nārāyaṇa. This is the conclusion of transcendental mellows.’ “The goddess of fortune considered that her vow of chastity would not be damaged by her relationship with Kṛṣṇa. Rather, by associating with Kṛṣṇa she could enjoy the benefit of the rāsa dance.” Veṅkaṭa Bhaṭṭa further explained, “Mother Lakṣmī, the goddess of fortune, is also an enjoyer of transcendental bliss; therefore if she wanted to enjoy herself with Kṛṣṇa, what fault is there? Why are You joking so about this?” Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, “I know that there is no fault on the part of the goddess of fortune, but still she could not enter into the rāsa dance. We hear this from the revealed scriptures. “‘When Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa was dancing with the gopīs in the rāsa-līlā, the gopīs were embraced around the neck by the Lord’s arms. This transcendental favor was never bestowed upon the goddess of fortune or the other consorts in the spiritual world. Nor was such a thing ever imagined by the most beautiful girls in the heavenly planets, girls whose bodily luster and aroma exactly resemble the beauty and fragrance of lotus flowers. And what to speak of worldly women, who may be very, very beautiful according to material estimation?’ This is a verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.47.60) Hope this reference from Bhagavatam helps. Wikidās ॐ wrote this reply to the nice Sri Vaisnava at 20:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Note for Wikidas and Zeuspitar: Please remember that wikipedia talk pages are not a forum to discuss subject of the article. Unless there is a specific proposal for adding/modifying content in the Krishna article, along with supporting references I suggest the above discussion be taken off this talk page, and ideally to an appropriate yahoo (or other) discussion forum. Abecedare ( talk) 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Based on the above reference, and because Alvars normally fall under the tradition of Sri Sampradaya we can change the above paragraph to:
Within Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the Nimbarka Sampradaya and Vallabha Sampradaya Krishna is worshipped as the source of all avatars (including Vishnu).
Wikidās ॐ 10:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link)Wikidas,
dab (𒁳) 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks that gives some 'definition' on the above sources. I just presented ONE of a few possible views. I firmly believe that its if you have a few contradicting views, that good articles are born. Not when you just accept some view as a final view. Very useful comments indeed. Wikidās ॐ 08:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
As you have suggested I wanted to discuss your revert on [3]. Maybe you can spell it out for us please. Not that I insist that it should be there, but its a valid addition of the meaning of the word. In Sanskrit word very often taken apart when meaning is described. Wikidās ॐ 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize this question was asked here too. I just answered it on my talk page and will copy the answer below. Ism, to answer your question: I have no problem with the Beck reference itself; rest is explained below. Abecedare ( talk) 00:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This follows Wikidas's addition of 'colour' to heading of the etymology section. This is correct in that the passage currently discusses his colour, but in lumping together etymology and colour is not exactly logical. Meanwhile, missing from the article is what seems to me to be at least as significant topic as that of the 'performing arts'. This is that of art and iconography showing Krishna; which could include the passages discussing his colour. I've written a first draft, based entirely on memory and without looking up any references.
Krishna is generally shown as dark-skinned child, as a boy, or as a youthful man. In many modern representations he is shown as being blue skinned, like many other deities of Hinduism.
Images of him as a child or young boy are common. In many of these he is shown with his foster parents, or carrying out one of his childhood exploits. (image)
Images of him with the gopis of Vrindabana are among the most common. (image)
As a boy or man he he is typcially shown in a characteristic relaxed pose, playing the flute, often with the villagers of Vrindaban. The association of him with the flute is one of the most common. (reference to music, e.g. raga Kalyani). In these scenes of him at Vrindabana, he is often shown with cattle, emphasising his position as 'the cowherd'.
The scenes on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, notably where he addresses Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita are also well known. In these he is often shown with god-like characteristics of Hindu religious art; such as multiple arms or heads, denoting power, and attributes of Vishnu, such as the chakra. (image)
Representations of him in temples may have him standing in an upright, formal pose, hands resting on hips. Another common representation shows him with his brother Balabhadra and sister Subhadra. (image)
It seems to me also that the names section could do with a minor expansion to discuss some his other better known names, especially those associated with his primary characteristics discussed in the article; 1. the cowherd Govinda, Gopala, 2. Vaasudeva; 3. complexion, Shyama, 4. Jaganatha.
Imc ( talk) 17:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
How is this ref [4] for the statement "The Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition interprets Krishna as all-attractive, based on a verse from Mahabharata that is quoted in Chaitanya Charitamrita."-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz, I copyedited the section a couple of days back, and the sentence you quote was a shortened version of the two sentences, "The Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition explains another meaning of the name Krishna as being “all-attractive” within the context of the bhakti perspective. This is justified by an interpretation of a verse in the Mahābhārata, as given in the Chaitanya Charitamrita." But I didn't check if the earlier content was actually supported by the reference, which as you say, it isn't. I think unless a reliable secondary citation is forthcoming, at least the second part of the sentence should be removed. Abecedare ( talk) 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just had my removal of Prabhupada's translation of something from this reverted - [5]. It seems to me that the Brahma Samhita is itself a rather esoteric work, and care needs to be taken that it not be treated as a primary or reliable source for all aspects of Hinduism. This applies even more so given the emphasis (still in the article) on particular Vaishnava schools and teachings. Imc ( talk) 17:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check date values in: |year=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link) p. 167: "I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord. Who is adept in playing on His flute, with blooming eyes like lotus petals with Head decked with peakock feathers with Figure of beauty with the hue of blue clouds, and His unique Lovliness charming millions of cupids."Krishna's name means "the all-attractive One"
Here are a few sources of many that confirm this. If you need more sources, or if none of these sources count as a "good source" let me know, I have millions of sources I could give you, and one of them is bound to be "acceptable". Thank You.
http://www.krishna.com/node/590
http://www.nyu.edu/clubs/krishnabhakti/faq.html
http://www.afn.org/~centennl/prabhupd.htm
http://www.dhirashanta.com/hindu_resources.htm
http://store.mas-india.com/krishnapendant.html
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/10/26/13/en3
http://www.hansadutta.com/KIRTAN/k1.html
http://www.hansadutta.com/KIRTAN/k1.html
http://hkwd.tripod.com/philo.htm
http://www.sda-archives.com/course/B/B26.html
http://www.sda-archives.com/course/W/W14.html
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/billyskank/26
http://www.iskcon.co.uk/newcastle/krsna_page3.html
http://www.krishna.com/node/118
http://www.sspteam.com/html/initiatives/text-active/pse-society/welcome-mat/hints-tips.html
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/bhaktiyoga-5.htm
http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/445/1/ISKCONs-Purpose/
http://www.iskcon.com/education/theology/6.htm
http://preaching.krishna.org/Articles/2004/04/004.html
http://www.utahkrishnas.com/main/page.asp?id=503
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/sb/10/26/13/
http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/8/139/en3
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/asource-09.html Maldek ( talk) 02:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
a scholarly dictionary of Sanskrit, perhaps?
dab
(𒁳)
16:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Further to this edit - [6] which states that 'some authors' (R G Bhandarkar, spelt wrong) suggest that the Krishna draksha in the Rigveda refers to the deity. The authority for the quotation is a book from Sunil Bhattacharya. The latter only mentions Bhandarkar in order to disagree with him, with detailed reasons. Without the direct quote I don't feel it is reasonable to add this; Bhandarkar may have been speculating. Imc ( talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The quote in question is where they disagree about (apparent Govardhan pastime):
Im not suggesting mentioning in full, but it can be mentioned, as well as the other names Krishna is mentioned in the Vedas proper. Wikidās ॐ 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
And, again, I am repeating myself...this guy does not know what he is saying! He doesnt know if he is coming or going! He uses erroneous references that people have told him over 10 times that they are not reliable! People are PRAISING him for his edits! Look on his discussion page. And, he is combative about his fantasy, delusional cult ideas. Every thing he does is with an iskcon group flavor and slant. It will take a long time to change his edits. And, at least 7 editors can say what I am saying is true. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA ( talk) 09:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikidās is clearly editing in good faith, but as clearly he has no idea what he is doing. He is not pulling his own weight, so to speak, creating an overhead of other editors needing to babysit him. This isn't welcome behaviour, but sort of a necessary evil on Wikipedia. This sort of behaviour tends to either improve over time as the editor learns how the system works, or deteriorate, resulting in a community ban. We'll just have to keep watching and see which way the balance will tilt. dab (𒁳) 10:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The proposal is being discussed at WT:KRISHNA. Please submit your views. Wikidās - ॐ 20:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It has been very quiet here so the article is a good state to get to the GA nomination. There are just a few tags and minor formating of the references that we can do; and following that I suggest nomination for GA, it will stabilize the article even further and compliment the work done. Discussion on it also started at the project page. Wikidās - ॐ 15:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Challenging the statement "In the hymn Vishnu Sahasranama composed by Bhishma in praise of Krishna after the Kurukshetra war, he is also called Rama.", though referenced, is a minority view.
"in praise of Krishna" can be challenged too. Encyclopaedia of Indian literature vol. 5 Published by Sahitya Akademi, (a Reliable source) doesn't even mention Krishna, it says the Vishnu Sahasranama (lit. "thousand names of Vishnu") "extols Vishnu". Other refs are : [7], [8]The text also names all other avatars of Vishnu like Vamana, Varaha inclusive of Rama, [9] [10] as synonyms to Vishnu, but in reality are distinct forms of Vishnu. So "he is also called Rama" is unneccesary. -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 13:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
13, 14 links were not fully visible though link 15 relates Krishna to the Sahasranama. Are Vishnu's thousand names considered as names of Krishna is open to debate. I will support the statement "there should be no mention of Vishnu Sahasranama for this Krishna article". I do not see any point in naming Rama as a name of Krishna, Rama was a separate individual. Rama, Varaha, Trivikrama, Vamana, Krishna are all called as names of Vishnu in Sahasranama; as they are believed to be his avatars or forms. Stressing Rama to be a name of Krishna is UNDUE.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The image from the Japanese temple is misleading. It is that of a Bodisattva and there are other similar images in the temple showing the Bodhisattvas playing various instruments. Check it out on google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.110.12 ( talk) 11:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess this falls outside of copy edit and need to be discussed on the talk page prior to changes. Section on Krishnology is critical to this article and can not be merged into others. Wikidās ॐ 06:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
There's references given for lots of things now, but if they are all well quoted, then they are introducing errors. Errors that in in some cases should be apparent from a simple use of a Sanskrit English dictionary, or in other cases an English dictionary and grammar.
'go' in Sanskrit refers to cattle, that is bulls, cows, and calves. Check a Sanskrit dictionary. Not cows though the word is etymologically related. Cattle is the collective English term. Check an English dictionary, it does not need a reference.
Govinda is often translated as herdsman, but then so is Gopala. The separate meanings of go and vindu are cattle and 'to find'. Check a Sanskrit dictionary.
The article in the English phrase 'tender of the cows' implies that there are specific cows that are being referred to. Without any context to specify these cows, this is just bad English. The phrase is either badly quoted or it is a bad reference. Check an English grammar.
This follows from this edit; [ [15]]
Imc ( talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Monier Williams Dictionary translates Gopala just as a "cowherd" [16] and Govinda as herdsman [17] and Both as Krishna.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 05:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Aslo Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology and Religion, Geography, History and ... - Page 112 by John Dowson translates it as "cowkeeper". Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English splits Govinda as "cows + master" (cowherd), not finder and Gopala as "protector of cows". [18]. Go thus is translated appropriately as Cows. It might be noted that MWSD translates vinda as to find, get. [19] Redtigerxyz ( talk) 05:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
"very beautiful dark-skinned man during his ... " appears to adequately retell the source but if its not "very" then the point is lost and the statement really should be removed. I dispute if just beautiful dark-skinned man describes the object. He is stunning... at least very beautiful. Wikidās ॐ 19:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
If your religious conviction compels you to pester Wikipedia with eulogies on the God(s) of your choice, you should seriously consider reflecting on the strength and purpose of your faith a little while. And the impression as to the maturity and general sanity of your religious community this will inadvertently evoke in uninvolved bystanders. Religion can be something beautiful. It's just that the actual religionists too often go out of their way to distract from this possibility. I suppose that's the difference between mere adherence and actual faith. -- dab (𒁳) 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Eh, screw my point. I was looking beyond... (*assumes embarrased face*) Sorry! BlackPearl14 Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 20:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Granted Krishna is a cousin of the Pandavas - Kunthi is the sister of Vasudevar, the father of Krishna. How come Kauravas be his cousins? Kindly cite references or genealogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VINU ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Krishna is everyone for Christ sakes!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.112.21 ( talk) 12:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The worship of Krishna is part of Vaishnavism, which regards Vishnu as the supreme god and venerates his associated avatars, their consorts, and related saints and teachers. Krishna is especially looked upon as a full manifestation of Vishnu, and as one with Vishnu himself. [2] However the exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu is complex and diverse, [3] where Krishna is considered an independent deity, supreme in its own right. [4]
All Vaishnava traditions recognise Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu; others identify Krishna with Vishnu; while traditions, such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism, [5] [6] Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, regard Krishna as the svayam bhagavan, original form of God, or the Lord himself. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] In the list of the epithets attributed to Krishna, he is described as the 'source of all incarnations' by Rupa Goswami. [12]
This paragraph of the introduction requires an adequate section in the main body of the article explaining the relevant views as per WP:LEAD. As it should be an independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. By the size of the paragraph this issue is probably the most important, thus a prominent section should be created. Wikidās ॐ 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both of you! :) Firstly, don't we all agree the sources (currently in the lead) are very valuable. Secondly, as someone who knows little about Hinduism, I appreciate having notable branches actually named in the text (somewhere). Finally, don't we all agree that the lead should be a summary, and more about Krishna than Vaishnavism? The relationship between Krishna and Vishnu in different traditions is complex, so editors could expand on this into the future were it to have its own section. Moving detailed discussion of Vishnu to the main body would leave more space to summarise key information regarding Krishna in the lead.
Whatever you two work out, thanks for a lot of sources in this article, informative text and a lot of helpful images to illustrate it. Please keep doing your good work. This is a very important article—there are many Krishna devotees; it really needs generous contributors (from any background) to work towards it being featured. Alastair Haines ( talk) 03:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
For his worshippers he is not an avatara in the usual sense, but svayam bhagavan, the Lord himself.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |other=
ignored (|others=
suggested) (
help) p.109