Talk:Bhagavata purana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] avatar of God?

Hi,

There is a term used Avatar of God. Should it not be "avatar of Vishnu"?

Chirag 16:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pirate links

I have deleted links to two pirate sites: bhagavata.net and bhagavata.org.

These sites knowingly and persistently bootleg copyrighted artwork and book-length copyrighted text belonging to the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Further information is available from the rights and permissions department of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, www.bbt.info.

The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Wikipedia:Copyrights, in Section 4.3, "Linking to copyrighted works."

O Govinda 11:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. Per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, we should not link to those sites. I have removed the links. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response from the "Pirate"

The version of the bhāgavata purāna at bhagavata.org and bhagavata.net is part of the distribution policy of the Bhāgavatam of a select company of elderly ISKCON devotees in the Netherlands. It is offered to and appreciated by his holiness Sri Kadamba Kanana Swami, the official ISKCON sannyāsi and representative in the Netherlands and may, by those unaware of this, according vaishnava etiquette not be excluded, brought down, degraded, compromised, repressed or discriminated as is ignorantly depicted above. It is the only full version of the holy book in the Dutch language, there is no other one. Excluding this would discriminate the 10.000 visitors the book has each week on the internet. Anand Aadhar as such may be considered the successor (by his widow blessed) of Sri Hayeshvar das, who before him took care of the still used and distributed translations of Prabhupāda's works in the Dutch language. There was an ISKCON fray about him too with false abusive devotees claiming Prabhupāda's authority. They opposing this core service in Holland, all blooped and fell down, including the sannyāsis associated with the offense; and so it happend with the critics of Aadhar. The writer of the above comment is surely no reliable, wise, aware or conscious representative of the ISKCON interest, since he campaigns against what ISKCON devotees in Holland need, do and use since the earliest days of the Krishna mission in the Netherlands. The honor of Prabhupāda is by these devotees in Holland not harmed or compromised but rather defended. The work, the daring task of progressing with the Bhāgavatam, continues, and has to continue. We are never done with this book. They who claim a one-line fixation of the book are ignorant of Lord Caitanya's defense of the 61 versions of the so-called âtmârâma-verse. The version in English is offered in courtesy so that one may know in what sense Krishna in the philosophical and free-thinker, reform-minded realm of Holland is progressing in taking up the karma. This policy followed is national dharma. Let not ignorance, false ego and possessiveness prevail in this holy enterpise of the Reformer that is Lord Caitanaya! We after all have free press and fight against the 'I and mine' demon so rampant in the western world. Copyright-claims over the works do, on top of that, in this case, not hold since:

1) the ISKCON-texts are used quote by quote and not as a running text; of each page the length of the purports has not been copied. So there is no question of copying entire texts as O Govinda suggests; it is thus fair use and no violation. The images are copyright of the separate devotees of whom none objected to our knowledge. The permission BBT has to use them in their publications gives no exclusive right over them what so ever. All the world uses them by the way in books, on t-shirts, websites and whatever; it is holy material offered in devotion to the Lord and, scripturally, no one may claim ownership as BBT tries to.
2) for any one working at the Bhāgavatam it is the formally prescribed method to refer to the Sanskrit and paramparā source before presenting his own realization,
3) it is ISKCON itself using in Holland - be it informally, for things are not definite - the dutch materials, the texts and the music of the site in their distribution, for necessity is command, what else can they do to be complete vi-bhagavit?
4) all money raised by the distribution, in CD-rom format as yet, of this version of the book, directly benefitted ISKCON, and indeed not BBT- the problem thus. Anand Aadhar never touched one penny for himself, invested all donations he received himself in the project, and has as yet paid for all costs of the project himself without demanding or receiving any financial support from ISKCON.

Thus, in conclusion, sorry, we can't yield to this formalist repression of ignorant and blinded commercialist socalled 'leaders and representatives' of ISKCON compromising sincere followers, believers and acclaimed devotees. There is, after all, no other way of progressing with Krishna but by taking up the work. Anyone following the paramparā method of reference as so exemplary is respected by Aadhar, can do exactly the same, since it is Prabhupāda who commanded it as the way of the devotee. We have to continue this way and not all be losers in square nihilism cramping about control, notably all being in service of the Lord, the actual Controller, who is also progress, expansion, character and necessity.

out of love for Krishna and His devotees

Anand Aadhar prabhu

--rpba 11:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir - I'm personally shocked at the strength of your objection to this website being removed, when www.srimadbhagavatam.org already listed gives the full text of Prabhupada's translation in the English language. It doesn't look good for your organisation to have such heated discussions over a link on a webpage - maybe you should contact the BBT directly about some of these issues, rather than on a public forum such as this? Best Wishes, ys GourangaUK 12:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalizing alternative views

Could the general Wiki moderator please prevent mr. O Govinda from vandalizing anything that is not his personal taste? He deleted, most unscientific, and politically motivated, with false pretenses of authority and ownership over materials of other devotees that BBT tries to make money with, many more links from alternative sites of devotees but the ones to bhagavata.org and .net. Let mr. Govinda first prove himself what his 'I am God' authority scripturally would justify concerning materials of acaryas and devotees. Stop the materially motivated in the disguise of devotees. It is Hiranyaksha in person! Please Lord Varaha help us slay this demon!

--rpba 10:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please help us slay this demon?? Very scientific and unpolitically motivated I'm sure. The nature of Wikipedia is open debate as to the content of any page, thus discussions, deletions, edits and reversions will happen quite regularly.

If something is in breach of copyright then according to Wiki policy it has to be removed. If you feel the web-page linked is not in breach of copyright then I'm not sure exactly how this would be resolved? There are already sufficient links to online versions of the Bhagavatam in English in the article which are definitely not copyrighted, so if the copyright of another page is in dispute I'd side with not including it untill a time where the debate is settled on a legal basis. Just trying to help. Regards, GourangaUK 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Scandal

Gentlemen it's a scandal this intolerance between devotees intimidating. We also deleted the BBT links because the version of them presented there isn't even entirely written by Prabhupada as they claim. So that info is also false. Shame all of you. None are deserving

Nrisimha

Dear Nrisimha. Please discuss the article content in a constructive manner without resorting to such tactics. I will revert your edits, and ask for intervention from an administrator if any more personal insults or illogical reversions are made. Why overreact in this way? GourangaUK 13:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fallen

Gouranga,
My personal opinion is that you are all fallen souls, revert that. Read S.B. 3.18 & 19

Aadhar (without the Ananda)

[edit] Truth

It is truly Kali yuga now (iron age, era of quarrel and strife), that can now not be stopped but we have to do our best to work with eachother to make it not a living hell! A devotee of our Lord (Krishna) only has the duty to work for Him and only to serve Him the best he/she can. He says in the Gita: "It is better to be unsuccessful with ones own duty than to perform perfect minding another's business as doing work restricted to one's own nature one will never run into offense." Also: But with all these activities must without doubt, performing them out of duty, the association with their results be given up; that, o son or Pritha, is My last and best word on it".

It seems that O Govinda and GourangaUK have not completely read the 'Response from the Pirate', (to call someone a pirate is already an offence against sincere devotees); they prove their lack of understanding and devotion in their above replies. On top of it, it is they who disgrace the whole society of devotees! Why condemn your fellow man/women in their devotional service, why resent the devotional service of others? If one puts money or a good position in society on top of one's wishing list, then one is sure to fall down. Everything belongs to Krishna and the person who knows this and strives to serve Him is sure to be blessed, because Krishna says: I will bring him what he needs.

One will find sincere devotees with ISKCON but the political/money-striving at BBT! They are jealous, disgruntled and causing people heart-felt pain! This has to stop. I fully support the sincere striving devotee, who only has Krishna as his savior and true soul! ' Bhajahu Re Mana - Sing o mind, of Mine'!

Sakhya devi dasi /30-6-06

Dear Sakhya devi dasi - I have thoroughly read the above comments. They are full of personal insults against other editors; fundamental philosophy irrelevant to the issue at hand; and criticisms of members of ISKCON. Do you really think that gives your organisation a good name when people will read the above? As I see it there are two logical arguments:

1) The contents of your website are identical/virtually identical to the writing of Bhaktivedanta Swami and thus the copyright of the BBT. If their permission has not been obtained you are legally in breach of copyright and it is therefore acceptable for them to request the website removed. The logical course of action would seem to be to contact them directly by email or telephone as I believe they are vitually part of the same organisation as yourself.

2) The contents are significantly different to the writings of Bhaktivedanta Swami. Thus they are not in breach of any copyright. But then as part of ISKCON why would you siginificantly change the writings of your own spiritual master? I very much doubt you'd agree with this.

Or you could choose to continue with making outbursts on this page, although I sincerely hope you don't take this option.

Begging your co-operation in this matter, GourangaUK 08:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progress

GourangaUK...

Choose from these two:

a: I don't read what others write and only hear what I want to hear.
b: I read and know what others say, and will this time try not to refuse to accept that progress is needed; after all the paramparâ has had more versions before Prabhupâda and will also have many after him; would the succession end with him? And how would you and me not be part of the succession? Aren't we all His limbs? I very much doubt you'd disagree with this.

And why do we have "outbursts" while I would be holy?

Don't you write yourself: "Don't be stuck up in a system. The system is required provided if you make progress towards the realization of the Goal. But if you simply follow a system but do not make advance in the matter of realizing the Goal, then it is simply labor of love. It has no value."

haribol

Aadhar

It seems we would all benefit from cooling down.

Here, as I see it, is the issue:

Wikipedia policy says we shouldn't link to sites that infringe on copyrights--that is, that make big use of material copyrighted by someone else and don't have the copyright holder's permission.

The sites Bhagavata.net and Bhagavata.org reproduce artwork and text published and copyrighted by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Aadhar, do you disagree with these points? Or do you say you have the Book Trust's permission? Or do you assert some third alternative?

Please, let's not talk about one another's character or motives. Let us first hear from you, Aadhar, what you'd like us to understand to be the answers to these questions.

Thank you, everyone, for your patience.

Respectfully, O Govinda 10:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Dear Sir,

my apologies, I realise now that you are not officially part of ISKCON and have your own personal system of Yoga (see www.bhagavata.org/c/8/AnandAadhar.html). Your mention of Kadamba Kanana Swami had led me to initially believe otherwise. Thus the second point I made above is to a large extent irrelevant in your case. I hope you can forgive me for this error - I will leave you to discuss the copyright issue with O Govinda.

Om Tat Sat, GourangaUK 11:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay apologies accepted. We embrace ISKCON even though they, as yet, do not love us that much. Aadhar --rpba 12:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Issue continued

By the way, I see that within the last few minutes you or someone else has restored the links to those sites. Okay, fine. If I was going to call for some cool discussion, I probably should have left them alone.

So before we enter another pointless round of reverting and restoring--or go on to further ways for resolving Wikipedia disputes--let's discuss the points above.

Okay?

Respectfully, O Govinda 10:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay Govinda, let's talk about it. Read first the four points on copyrights I gave in my first defense. I insist that no rights have been breached and thus have the full right to be respected as a righteous reference.
Aadhar --rpba 10:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Aadhar. I've reviewed your four points. Here is my response:

1. Your first argument is "fair use." Because you intersperse the copyrighted material with other material, you say, that makes the use fair.

That would be true for "a quotation here, a quotation there." But when you reproduce (as you have) whole chapters of translations done by someone else, or (again as you have) all the word-for-word meanings and translations for an entire book ("Bhagavad-gita As It Is"), the use is so substantial in extent that it's no longer fair.

And the pictures are indeed copyrighted.

2. You cite a need to refer to respected traditional sources. But the extent of your use of copyrighted texts far outpaces that need.

3. I'm not quite sure I understand your third point. It seems to be "ISKCON uses all this, and therefore so can I." ISKCON, however, has a license from the copyright holder, and you do not. That seems to invalidate your point.

4. Your fourth point seems to be "You can use someone else's copyrighted material as much as you want, as long as you don't make money on it." This is simply not true. It's not that, for example, I could print 10,000 copies of "The Da Vinci Code" and call it fair use, as long as I give the profit to The Salvation Army. Your argument simply doesn't fly.

This is how I look at it. But clearly you see it the opposite way.

If you could work cooperatively in such a way as to reach an agreement with the copyright holder, that would solve the whole problem. But I don't know whether you can do that.

Alternatively, if you have a site where you use only your own material, or material in the public domain, without heavily reproducing the copyrighted works of others, you could link here to that site.

So now what?

Respectfully, O Govinda 16:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Govinda,

There is no other way prabhu,

1) I do not quote any running text, no whole chapters, for they comprise purports I do not copy; I only use one verse at a time that I, and I am not sorry for it, necessarily have to discuss according
2) the paramparâ method that says first give the previous version and the word for word. Thus I obey. Otherwise I cannot do my work. I cannot link to the vedabase directly; that would violate the independence of the site. I would be invalidated if vedabase is out of the air, or would be down along with your server, which happens to all of us webmasters so now and then. Why not this sameness, what's the worry, what's wrong with this back-up to your fine service, why object to your own honor?
3) How can a servant obeying the command of the âcârya be in offense of whatever right he 'owns'? And what would ownership be in this - I insist- scriptural context? Remember the Gita 2:47 on this: to do your duty, ok, but one has no rights over the fruits what so ever. Is your 'law', 'authority' or 'command' bigger than that of Krishna? I don't think so.
4) What other reasons than the financial would there be to ban people from using the texts and such? There is one, namely that of preventing abuse of the text and images, but, since I follow procedure, this other argument of possible disrespective, and twisting use does not apply. In fact it is you who defend a double bind: not following my procedure I would be an heretic, and when I do follow, you deny me the right. This is driving people crazy!! Further: Your suggestion to link up with the 'my-texts-only' option, you have deleted yesterday when I did link up to our 'my-text-only' version of the book. So you ask for something you don't want and you demand for something you are not willing to give yourself. Double standards are no basis for reasonable agreement prabhu.

So let's close the argument now and let me do my devotional service. Please I beg you, create no further trouble. No one complains but you, with, to me, incomprehensible impersonalist formalism. What do you really want? My undivided attention? My blind obedience and submission to a demigod-thing like the BBT? Lord Caitanya says: mat-prâna-nâthas tu sa eva nâparah meaning, I serve the Lord and no one else. So where are your quotes of loyalty? Now, that would be paramparâ validity! I cannot and will not stop serving Krishna, Prabhupâda and His devotees the way it should. This is my last word about it. No more Kali.

Chant and be happy with all the service we offer,
Gratitude and example is the way to God, and not the effort to defile and control the behavior of others, however poor that behavior might be.
Have faith man, hang loose and don't be such a square. Honest.

In respect of Prabhupâda above all 'rules and regulations'

Aadhar--rpba 08:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Are you aware of O Govinda's conclusions right below this?

Aadhar--

It's true, you have not copied whole books. You have left out the purports. But (aside from the copied artwork) you have copied the word-for-word meanings and the translations for the entire Bhagavad-gita As It Is (700 verses) and the entire Srimad-Bhagavatam (17,000 verses), all of which are copyrighted.

That goes way beyond fair use.

As for your other points--essentially about what is "spiritually right"--that is a subject for discussion elsewhere. Here, what we're concerned with is whether or not a link to your site would violate the policies of Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia does value copyrights, and because your site infringes on them, linking here to your site goes against Wikipedia policy.

Or is there something I'm overlooking?

Respectfully, O Govinda 14:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Govinda

As I said, fairness and necessity, who will be the judge of that? I understand what you mean by fair, but I see the necessity of what I do and say: all in love - for Krishna - is fair. Do you see that too? If it can't be as it should, it should be as it can. That also might be a legal decision. Do you know the jurisprudence in this? Do we need a materialist judge for that? Is he the greater one then? That is not our honor! Again thus, who of us two or three then, would be the greater judge? You? Wikipedia? I? We all exist by the Lord His mercy, let Him decide. If you or I can prove himself to be the avatâra, the original owner, let His judgement decide. Alas there is no Prabhupada anymore for us to tell us in this case what and who. But I remember what he said about the use of natural resources: are you the owner of the ore, the gold and diamonds you find in the earth? Isn't that the Lord?

Hoping for closure and peace, haribol

Aadhar--rpba 08:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Aadhar, for your response.

You ask, Who will judge? Well, since this is Wikipedia, if we can't decide this among ourselves we will need to seek help from third parties, such as a Wikipedia administrator.

As I've said before, the Wikipedia rule about linking to copyrighted material used without permission is quite clear: It's against Wikipedia policy.

But, okay, let's look at this from a spiritual point of view. You say, "Alas there is no Prabhupada anymore for us to tell us in this case what and who." Fortunately, Srila Prabhupada, the author of most of the material you're using, provided for that. Before he left he formed a Book Trust, entrusted to it his copyrights, and appointed trustees to (among other things) make decisions about those copyrights on his behalf. So if you respect the author, you should respect the decisions made by his trustees.

The other authors whose works you have used without permission have also entrusted their copyrights to the Book Trust. So if you respect those authors, again you should respect the decisions of the trustees.

So, looking at the matter either spiritually or materially we arrive at the same point:

If you have spiritual respect for the authors you should respect the right of their representatives to decide what you may or may not publish.

And if you have respect for the laws of Wikipedia, you should respect the law that linking from Wikipedia to copyrighted material used without permission is not allowed.

Either way, those links have to go. It would be good of you to agree.

Respectfully, O Govinda 20:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Govinda

If someone like Prabhupâda or another devotee entrusts you with copyrights, doesn't that mean that you are entrusted with the all judgement of justice in that, especially not against his spirit. In this case, Wikipedia cannot decide by their 'laws', because this is matter of obedience and closing ranks to the world of illusion. If I obey Prabhupâda, who demands the method of reference discussing the holy texts (to give the Sanskrit word for word, and the previous version also), to my opinion that overrules the entrusted right to you. The pictures surely will not be objected against by any of the artists since vedabase does not present them, nor does any site elsewhere systematically to the texts. Prabhupâda explicitely stressed the presentation with pictures. So also in this I obey. So vedabase doesn't meet the purpose while I do. Actually I should also present the purports, but that is a less absolute demand I managed to drop and thus do keep the motive and advantage for also buying your books. No harm done. That was a fair compromise I thought.

Another point to take notice of is that bhagavata.org was there first on the net in jan. 2000, because BBT was lax in their presentation that came only later. That was one of my motives to start with this. So it is understandable the way i've built the site, and that offers another argument in my favor. Why should I alter my ways for people following me? You didn't even thank me for it you know, nor do you presently match the requirements of presentation that Prabhupâda demands. He also said: use your own intelligence; and: when will you ever learn to be intelligent? So you are in offense relative to him and not I. So what do we call your attitude in this in normal lay terms? You are hitting your own acarya's servant! Would he approve? Children are known to be stricter than their parents in educating brothers and sisters. But I am not your younger brother thus, I was first born on the net in this simply doing what the acaryas told me to: the esteemed Kadamba and (former) Suhotra swami both independently of each other advised me to do devotional service with the computer. That is the mandate I work with, and the rest is simple logic. What, with my capacity, should I do else? I am paramparâ correct.

Sorry prabhu, I think we better burry the hatchet and leave things be. This out of respect for the time, the person, the acarya, the painters who need their services to be acknowledged too, the peace and bliss of the Lord, and for the other devotee customers who have tuned in, are happy and grew accustomed to our presentations as they are - as you also did after all (partly). So I remain with my obedience saying that what I do Prabhupâda would have never objected since I follow the method, and offer a unique service like presenting things in Dutch, and offer pictures and bhajan music no one employs either, a promotion in which BBT also fails, nor is appreciative of, while everybody, still, and more and more, is pleased with it. So please, for Krishna's sake, lets use our sane mind and stop the formalist argument 'with-a-dagger-in-hand' which serves no one nor any devotional or financial purpose, nor any decency and respect in fact. My work only, to your advantage, advertised and promoted the bhâgavatam that the BBT sells. I've referred many buyers to your site for buying copies, since we don't sell any of our version (that you didn't print either, so I don't compete). There was no appreciation, nor full capacity to obtain it, for all of this from your side, nor do I demand that from you folks, but some integrity in respect of a (relatively) good job done (never good enough of course) and like assistence and support delivered, might be on its place I think.

And please don't try to have the last word in this but with a positive and constructive one, you know this diplomatic campaign ends in war (as Prabhupâda explained it) if we don't find the mutual respect devotees should always maintain according their etiquette. Let's not prepare for a second Prabhâsa dear Yadu-brother! We had the taste already. There are ten thousand visitors each week at the site, that you offend and threaten too. I guess that is quite a bit of ISKCON involved then... So let's close this at the win-win situation we have now.

Still love you for Krishna, despite the pain i.t.b.

Aadhar--213.84.172.15 11:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear administrator, Mr. Harrison

You without further taking notice of this discussion removed our links. Are we of reason here? Clearly the copyright claim of Govinda is not quite justified or beyond reasonable doubt. Thus why this death penalty? I have restored the Links therefore.

With all respect

Aadhar--rpba 08:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aadhar - having viewed your website, I don't know how you can claim using the BBT images without their permission is not in breach of copyright? GourangaUK 08:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring material deleted from this page

Today I've reverted this page to the latest version of 17 July to restore a discussion later deleted. On 20 August, Aadhar wrote:

Is it correct to remove other contributons to the discussion on this? Isn't that abuse Govinda & Harrison? Speaking about being fair... what is a discussion page good for deleting the answers to your so-called absolutes of judgement?

I agree with him that such material from the talk page shouldn't be deleted. Among other reasons: Should Aadhar wish to submit his links to other Wikipedia pages, other editors will have the discussion here to refer to.

I think there's a way to archive the material, isn't there?

Respectfully, O Govinda 13:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/h/a/Talk%7EBhagavata_purana_b3f2.html"

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance for this Project's importance scale.