Talk:Dattatreya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hindu mythology, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hindu mythology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

	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
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale.

[edit] Upanishad quote

The use being made of the Upanishad quote is completely bogus. The quote itself says only, "in the guise of a child, a madman, a devil". It does not say that Dattatreya is "the personification of evil". That is a Wikipedia editor's personal opinion. THAT is the part the needs a citation. Whose interpretation is it? Are they reputable? I see a quote that implies that Dattatreya seems like but is not (i.e. "in the guise of") a child, a mad-man or a devil. It doesn't say he is a devil and even if it did, the cultural meaning is not the same as the western "Devil". This is simply being used as an excuse to insert sectarian bullshit. -999 (Talk) 22:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The upanishad quote which has been a part of the ATHARVA VEDA is not a "BOGUS QUOTE", to call it sectarian is even more bogus. It's like Christians denying the New Testament.

It's not the quote I object to. Don't you get it? It's the uncited interpretation of the quote. You can't add that without saying whose opinion or interpretation it is. Without that, the quote is meaningless in context. It is only being used to insert a BOGUS OPINION about what it might mean. -999 (Talk) 22:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The translation might be questioned, but a Pisacha is a demonic spirit...The Datatreya Upanishad is found in the original sanskrit online.

--Shravak 22:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

But it doesn't say he is a pisacha. It says he can appear in the guise of one. I'm not ignorant of Sanskrit. I disagree that it means what you and Green are trying to make it mean. -999 (Talk) 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, as long as this critical information from a major text is included--Shravak 22:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Dattat 23:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Curious, who do you agree with, Dattat? My opinion is that the quote was taken out of context and used to make a point not intended by the text. 999 has very rightly expanded the quote by including context. It now cannot possibly be made to mean that Dattatreya is "the personification of evil" or a devil or anything of the sort. Are you guys ISKCON? —Hanuman Das 01:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So that's why I got called a sockpuppet? Because you don't agree? Wow! You guys throw your weight around here! Dattat 17:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, because it was your very first edit and you made the very same change that another user had just been pushing into the article to the point of being blocked for it. Coincidence? I don't think so. -999 (Talk) 17:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand your complaint, Dattat. I never called you a sockpuppet. Apparently, 999 has, and somehow because I agree with him about your edit (actually, it seems it was originally Green23's edit, then Shravak's edit) then it is my fault too? I don't follow your reasoning...unless you are Green23 and you are mad because I reverted his edits, because I haven't touched the article since you started editing it. —Hanuman Das 01:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New material

Thanks, Palaviprabhu, for all the new material. But there are just so many formatting problems with it that I had to revert it. I will be readding it a section at a time while removing the formatting problems. Several things you should know: only the first word of headings should be capped, and bold font should not be overused, typically it is only used in the first paragraph to bold the subject of the article. Also, try not to break up sections written by other editors. And try not to introduce linke breaks into paragraphs, it makes the diffs hard to read. —Hanuman Das 13:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have reintegrated the new material in what I think is a better organization. I think I got it all, but if I missed anything please bring it up here on the talk page so we can discuss how best to integrate it. —Hanuman Das 14:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

hi, HanumanDAs, thanks for the re-editing trouble. It reads + looks much better. Somehow my style of editing was different. Also I am new to this. About removing some parts, I have removed may be one or two lines of the previous article. Somehow I felt that Mahendranath quotes were uncessary. But since it was part of the old article version, I did not delete it unless there is some discussion and unanimity to remove it. I need to revise the NAth tradition as well. That is not fully complete. Later as time permits I will add more Saints in the Dattatreya tradition in an additional section. thanks once again. About the "Upanishad " discussion above, this "Pishach" word is used to depict the abnormal behavior. The Literal meaning of this word is "Ghost" in Marathi. But it is also used to show the following type of behavior: WEar no clothes, no bath taking, stay in mud, Have jata (hair strangled together with some gum) with some extreme ones as, eat human flesh, eat animal flesh (raw) and live in crematoriums. The last 3 things were part of Aghori tradition and were changed by Gorakhnath. But the other ones still remain and you will find that the behavior of some of the saints is like that. so the English word "Devil" may not be appropriate, however, using the word "Ghost" also may not be appropriate. The word, "ghastly" might be close. anyway. its your call.Palaviprabhu 16:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that whole section about pishach could in my opinion be removed. It was put in by someone trying to "prove" that Dattatreya is the "personification of evil" and some sockpuppets kept putting it back simply to mess with myself and 999, but they have now been blocked. I will take it out and see if anyone insists on putting it back, since it has been made clear the the quote in context doesn't mean what they want to make it mean.

With respect to Mahendranath, much of the information in the Dattatreya as an historical figure section came from his works. Now that that has been broken up, I'll need to go in and cite it. I personally would prefer to leave in the Mahendranath quote, as he is my guru. —Hanuman Das 18:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)