Talk:Vaishnavism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vaishnavism article.
Wikiproject_Hinduism 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Bhagavad Gita

Due to Krishna's being the teacher, it is of course revered by the Vaishnavs, but the Bhagavad Gita is not a Vaishnav text, just as the Mahanirvana Tantra (in which Shiva speaks) is not a 'Shaivaite text.' (the tantras are Agamic texts). The Gita is a self-proclaimed Yoga Upanishad, and has been viewed as Yogic, Tantric, Vedantic, AND Theist by many schools.

Hare Krishna != ISCKON pamri 11:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Bhagavad Gita is certainly a Vaisnava text! After all, its speaker is a favorite deity of Vaisnavas, Bhagavan Sri Krsna. The fact that other types of religionists, yogis, etc. find it useful does not detract from its position as a Vaisnava text. You might as well claim that the New Testament is not a Christian text because, as a pillar of Western civilization, it has been appreciated apart from its religious context. You could say that the Qur'an is not an Islamic text, that the Dharmapada is not a Buddhist text, etc.

[edit] Sects.

As the term sect is understood according to its Wikipedia definition, it is inappropriate to describe Vaisnavism. Sect implies a breaking away---from what did Vaisnavism "break away"? Sect also imples tension with its social environment, as if a sect were a minority facing a hostile majority. Yet Hindu society throughout its history has been distinguished by its pluralism. In such an environment, one's religous beliefs generally provoke little comment from others---there is no doctrinal heresy in Hinduism precisely because Hinduism is not a single religion. The terms sect and denomination were developed to describe a single religion---see the discussion beginning with Max Weber---and do not make sense for Hinduism. The exception would be WITHIN Hindu religions: if a particular school of Vaisnavism or Saivism, for instance, were to split into two or more groups, we might call these groups sects. But by definition---by the Wikipedia definition---sect means cleavage AND social tension. Without social tension, it probably does not make sense to use the term sect for any religious group.

[edit] Recent History

Baha'i is most recent form of Vashnavism to be found in India and around the world. Baha'is see Baha'u'llah as the incarnation of Kalki, the return of Krishna for the end of the world. It is now a major group of people, over 6 million in over 236 nations. They even have the most visited structure on the face of the planet; the Lotus Tempe in New Delhi. They are the only recent group of people or religion from outside of India to believe in Krishna under the same general divine prospects as Vashnavism. Therefore, they are the most recent available historical group for this article. It is very relevant in the section because the sentence before says: "With the entry of other religions into the Indian subcontinent, Hindus became more united and the discriminations of Vaishnavism and Saivism turned more into intellectual arguments rather than mutually exclusive philosophies." This is the perfect segway and definition into the Baha'i phrase, definig its characteristics and rise. 24.248.188.30 10:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anon, with all due respect are the Bahai's not more of a global movement, than a 'Vaishnava' one imparticular? Of course in a greater sense you could argue that Christianity and Islam are also forms of Vaishnavism, because true Vaishnavism simply means 'love of God', but I don't think that's what most people mean by the term in a wikipedia/scholarly sense. I've got nothing against the Bahai movement at all, I just think your desire to include it in this article is maybe somewhat misplaced from a scholarly perspective? Also your sentence which I quote below is totally incorrect:
  • "They are the only recent group of people or religion from outside of India to believe in Krishna under the same general divine prospects as Vashnavism"
There are a number of movements now outside of India which worship Krishna. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness is obviously the most well known for promoting the worship of Krishna imparticular. There is also the Gaudiya Math, and the Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mission. Within India there are the four Vaishnava sampradayas (Rudra-sampradaya, Brahma-sampradaya, Lakshmi-sampradaya & the Kumara-sampradaya) coming from acharyas such as Ramanuja, Madhvacharya and Nimbarka. Which Vaishnava lineage is the Bahai faith connected to? Or would you agree it is more of a universal movement which incorporates some teachings from the Vaishnava traditions along with many others? GourangaUK 14:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the anonymous editors statements, but the way the statement was written in the article was not totally true, so I have removed it. There is no incorporation of teachings here. The Baha'i Faith views Hinduism (as well Christianity, Islam, and other religious traditions) as a progressive set of teachings from God, and see Krishna as a Manifestation of God, and in that sense Baha'u'llah is the most recent incarnation of Krishna. Baha'is see the social laws of Hinduism being abrogated by Baha'u'llah's newer revelation.
Regardless, I don't know if it fully fits in the article, unless there is another section of other views so I'm just posting here to clear up misconceptions of Baha'i belief. -- Jeff3000 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making it more clear Jeff. Ys, GourangaUK 08:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The name Vaishnava

Would I be correct in thinking that in Sanskrit, Vaishnava is the plural form, and that Vaishna is the singular form, for devotee/s of Vishnu? Imc 07:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Imc, I've only ever come across the terms 'Vaishnava' (single) and 'Vaishnavas' (plural). Never heard of Vaishna. GourangaUK 09:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Same for me actually, I was extrapolating from other words. And now I gather from other sources that there is no such word Vaishna. Imc 19:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I can be of help here. In Sanskrit grammar, one strengthens the medial vowel or sometimes the medial and final vowels when you want to indicate "that which is related to x". Thus, Visnu (the God)/Vaisnava [the i becomes ai and the u becomes ava]. The same goes for Siva/Saiva or Buddha/Bauddha. The addition of -ism or -as is merely adding Western endings to Sanskrit words. (JW)

[edit] Achintya-bheda-Abheda

I've noticed a few times on Wikipedia the miss spelling on this term. It should be spelt Achintya-bheda-abheda. I changed it on this page. If there are any complaints, please let me know.Vidyapati dasa 05:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Articles?

I've added a tag to merge Vaishnava theology into this page as both articles cover very similar (if not identical) ground, and it might make more sense to have one clearly detailed and referenced article than two somewhat unstructured ones. Does anyone have any thoughts, ideas or objections? Ys, GourangaUK 11:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaishnavism is not Henotheistic

Someone changed the opening paragraph and took out the word panentheistic and replaced it with henotheistic. I changed it back because that is wrong. Vaishnvaism is panentheistic and is not henotheistic, there is only belief in one god. There is also a belief in devas, or demigods, but they are seen as ordinary human souls who have been elevated to positions of celestial management, similar to angels and archangels in the abrahamic traditions. Henotheism is the worship of one god but the acceptance of more then one god, it is similar to polytheism in that both believe in more then one god. Vaishnavism is strictly monotheistic. Vishnu is god and no other entity is equal to or greater then Vishnu. That is the most basic teaching of Vaishnavism. Also Vaishnavism teaches that God exists outside of the universe in Vaikuntha, and also pervades the universe as the substance of the universe. Vishnu means all pervading. So that is a panentheistic belief. Shiva das 23:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaishnavism is Henotheistic

Monotheism is the belief in one God while holding the rest to be False Gods. Since when did Vaishnavas start saying the Gods like Brahma and Shiva are false? Henotheism is the belief in a Supreme God with the rest as being subservient to the will of the supreme. Vaishnavism holds this stand. It is not panentheistic. Vaishnavas dont worship Shiva,Brahma etc. even though they acknowledge their existence. All pervasiveness is one of the powers of the lord. That doesnot mean everything is God!!

In reply
It appears to be a question of definition:
  • Monotheism: "The doctrine or belief that there is only one God"
  • Henotheism: "Belief in one god without denying the existence of others"
  • Pantheism: "A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena" or "Belief in and worship of many gods"
Vaishnavism only believes in one God (God in this sense means Supreme God) whom is Vishnu. Vaishnavism does not recognise any other God as being equal or superior to Vishnu and thus would not come under the category of being Henotheistic. It does, however, recognise Vishnu as being existant to some extent as the Universe (it is one of his energies) and does not reject the existence of devas as described in the Vedic texts, thus could in someways also be described (although not primarily) as pantheistic. Ys, GourangaUK 12:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean panentheism? Pantheism has different meanings but the main point of the doctrine is that that the universe is the manifestation of god. Panentheism is pantheism with the addition that god is not only the substance of the universe but that god also exists outside of the universe, transcends the universe as well as being the substance of the universe. All vaishnava traditions teach one form of panentheism or another. In fact henotheism is not a part of any tradition within hinduism. There are 2 basic existential ontologies within hinduism when it comes to god. Monotheistic monism and monotheistic panentheism. The smarta, advaita, shaivite and shakta traditions believe in monotheistic monism. To them Brahman is everything. All gods like Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, Kali, Sarasvati etc, are taught as being incarnations into the material realm of the one unchanging Brahman. They are not many gods but manifestations of one supreme god: Brahman. The vaishnava traditions are different in that Brahman is taught as one aspect of Vishnu and that all other gods (other then Vishnu's avatars e.g. Krishna, Rama, etc) are not simply manifestations of Brahman but that they are ordinary souls (jivatma) who are temporarily elevated by Vishnu to positions of celestial management under the direction of Vishnu. In the vaishnava scriptures it states that god is the substance of the universe and not only an all pervading spirit. From the Vedas we find the Purusha Sukta wherein panentheism is expounded:

Purusha Sukta

All this (manifestation) is the Purusha alone - whatever was and whatever will be. He is the Lord of Immortality, for He transcends all in His Form as food (the universe). Such is His Glory; but greater still is the Purusha. One-fourth of Him all beings are, (while) three-fourth of Him rises above as the Immortal Being. (translation - Swami Krishnananda)

2. This Purusa is all that yet hath been and all that is to be; The Lord of Immortality which waxes greater still by food.

3. So mighty is his greatness; yea, greater than this is Purusa. All creatures are one-fourth of him, three-fourths eternal life in heaven. (translation - Ralph T.H. Griffith)

Purusha alone is all of this, that which was, and that which is too be. Moreover of immortality too is he alone Lord. That which as food (atirohati) shows itself, that too is purusha. All that is here seen is his greatness. And then, beyond all this is that Purusha great. All that was created in this world is but one part of him. The other three parts are in heaven, where they are eternal. (translation - Sri V. Sundar)

Bhagavad Gita

Translation - Swami Gambhirananda

7.4 This Prakrti of Mine is divided eight-fold thus: earth, water, fire, air, space, mind, intellect and also egoism.


Translation - Dr. S Sankaranarayan

7.4. My nature is divided eightfold, such as the Earth, the Water, the Fire, the Wind, the Ether, the Mind, and also the Intellect and the Ego;


Translation - Swami Sivananda

7.4 Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intellect and egoism -- thus is My Nature divided eightfold.



Bhagavat Purana 11.13.24

manasa vacasa drishtya grihyate 'nyair apindriyaih aham eva na matto 'nyad iti budhyadhvam anjasa

SYNONYMS

manasa -- by the mind; vacasa -- by speech; drishtya -- by sight; grihyate -- is perceived and thus accepted; anyaih -- by others; api -- even; indriyaih -- senses; aham -- I; eva -- indeed; na -- not; mattah -- besides Me; anyat -- anything else; iti -- thus; budhyadhvam -- you should all understand; anjasa -- by straightforward analysis of the facts.

TRANSLATION

Whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is indeed Me, and nothing besides Me. You should all understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts.


Henotheism accepts the existence of more then one god. Vaishnavism simply does not. The demi-gods in vaishnava traditions are the same as humans except they have been elevated to positions of celestial management by Vishnu. In vaishnavism Brahma is an ordinary soul but has been given a position cognate with an archangel in the biblically based traditions. Depending on the specific vaishnava tradition Shiva can either be an ordinary soul who has been elevated above the position of an ordinary soul and the demi-gods and is therefore given his own unique ontological position, or Shiva can be a plenary expansion or incarnation of Mahavishnu (Sadashiva). There are 2 categories of Shiva in vaishnavism, but neither one is seen as another god then Vishnu. Shiva is seen as either another form of Vishnu or he is an oridnary soul who has been elevated above all other ordinary souls including Brahma and the rest of the demi-gods. Shiva das 01:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaishnavism and ISKCON

I marked the page NPOV as the page discusses only one sect of Vaishnavism. Equal footage is not given to other beliefs in Vaishnavism. In fact, it is not clear how the closed sect of Vaishnavism as practiced by Iyengars be compared to an open sect as practiced by ISKCON. Even the temple architectures and importance attributed are different. I believe that we need to split the article into 3, involving the believes of the ISKCON sect, Iyengar sect, and the believers of Vishnu from other communities.

Another comment is that all the images are copyrighted. Lot of free Vishnu images are available and thus, the fair use principle is violated. I'm going to separately tag those images.

Balajiviswanathan 18:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


This page quite clearly does not discuss only one sect of Vaishnavism. If it stated "Krishna is the Supreme God" and "the ultimate dharma is to chant Hare Krsna" then it would be clearly a Gaudiya POV, but this article is far from that. Currently it discusses Vaishnavism as a whole - the four main sampradayas (from all around India), the relevance of different tilak markings etc... and there is a stub section where more detail needs to be added regarding the history of Vaishnavism.
ISKCON and Gaudiya Vaishnavism are dealt with on other pages it does not make sense to split this page into three. If you feel some detail is missing then please add it in. Yes, the Alvars are not mentioned enough - so add some detail please, I'm all for expanding the page further. Also if you have more pictures that you would like to add, then go ahead. Which statements do you believe are POV exactly? Please provide some specific arguments.
In regards to the pictures, previously no pictures were on this page, and nobody seems interesting in finding any without copyright. Surely it is better to make the effort and find some decent images before asking for the removal of those currently there? That is the only thing which I can see might be taken as POV at the moment - that ther images included are not from a mix of Vaishnava traditions. I sincerely believe that the text itself is from the neutral perspective, even if not full in every detail. I'm more than willing to work in making this article better if you have some information to add? Best Wishes, ys, GourangaUK 14:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I have since removed one of the images sourced from the BBT and included another image of Vishnu as recently added to the Vishnu article. GourangaUK 14:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/a/i/Talk%7EVaishnavism_f0f3.html"