Talk:Balarama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikiproject Krishnaism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Krishnaism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with traditions worshiping Krishna. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
WikiProject Vaishnavism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vaishnavism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Vaishnavism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
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.
High This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Isn't Balarama the 9th (and not the 8th) avatar ? And where in the avatar box does Buddha and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu come ? Jay 17:29, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


You're right about ninth, I've fixed it. Balarama is the most common candidate for the ninth avatar, and I didn't think it was worth cluttering up the box, so I left Buddha out. Chaitanya is totally out of the question, the dasavatara story has been around far longer than he has; I don't think anyone except the descendants of his disciples considers him an avatar :) -- Arvindn 18:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


OK, I've added Buddha. I think I've figured out about Chaitanya: he's the Hare Krishna guy, and Hare Krishna is somewhat well-known outside India, and so Chaitanya as an avatar might have some weight in Western studies on Hinduism, one of which must have originally formed the basis for the avatar article. But no Hindus accept that view, so I don't think its fair to put him in the box. -- Arvindn 18:40, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just as a note, the 'Hare Krishna guy' referred to is 'Sri Krishna Caitanya Mahaprabhu' who appeared in India in 1486. He is not included within the standard list of Vishnu avatars in the Bhagavata Purana, but is known as the 'hidden' avatar. There are verses foretelling His appearance in a number of places in Mahabharata and later on in the Bhagavata Purana. His divinity is accepted amongst Gaudiya Vaishnavas inside and outside India (including ISKCON) but He is not so well known by 'Hindus' as a whole. --GourangaUK 09:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Bit about Yasoda?

The part about Krishna being in Yasoda's womb can't be right because she was not Krishna's mother by birth, so it's completely illogical. --Grammatical error 06:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a point there GM ... maybe we could replace it with another pastime more in line with the rest of Balarama's lila. Best Wishes, GourangaUK 20:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strength

My apologies for misunderstanding the text and pointing the link incorrectly.

Wikipedia policy is to discourage linking directly to disambiguation pages, especially when the word is being used in a particular sense. What would be an appropriate link here? Is this the same bala referenced in Vishnu? Is it same or different than The Five Powers referenced at the end of the bala disambiguation page? Should it have an explanatory article of its own? (Titled what? There's a temporary placeholder, bala (strength), in the Vishnu article but that may not be the best choice for the article's name.) Or is the word "strength" being used so amorphously here that it makes better sense to link to the wiktionary definition, wikt:strength? Sanguinity 23:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sanguinity, I've linked it to the wikitionary definition which you gave above - I thought it shouldn't be tied down to a specific spin on strength, GourangaUK 22:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you much! Sanguinity 23:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

I believe the quote regarding the origins of Balarama from the British Museum (I'm assuming from a plaque that went alongside the coin?) is not suitable for inclusion with the coin caption. It gives a non-universal opinion, which would be fine if referenced from a study or book by a scholar knowledgeable in the origins of Hinduism, within the main text alongside other counter-views. However, at present it is written as fact, and I would not personally consider a caption at the British museum a reliable source on such a complex issue. For dates I would consider such a source reliable, but not so for theories of this type. Gouranga(UK) 19:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Museum coin caption

"Balarama, holding mace and conch on a Maurya coin (lower right), 3rd-2nd century CE. British Museum."

The Mauryan empire was an empire of the 3rd-2nd century BCE, not CE.--SohanDsouza (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)