Talk:Bhagavad Gita

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bhagavad Gita was the Hinduism Collaboration of the week for the week starting on January, 2007. For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Krishnaism (Rated GA-Class) 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 Hindu philosophy (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hindu philosophy, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hindu philosophy. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. WikiProject Vaishnavism (Rated GA-Class) 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 (Rated GA-Class) 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. WikiProject Religious texts (Rated GA-Class)   Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. GA This article has been rated as GA on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) WikiProject India (Rated GA-Class) 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. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article.

This article contains or may have contained one or more non-free photograph or photographs. It is requested that a freely-licensed photograph be included in this article to replace such copyrighted images, if possible, in order to better comply with our policy for non-free content. Many copyright-free image sources are listed at our public domain image resources, or you could create your own. Alternatively, you may request permission from the copyright holder of the original images to release them under a free license. Wikipedians in India may be able to help!

Archives

1, 2

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bhagavad Gita article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

	Bhagavad Gita has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
January 15, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

Contents 1 Comment 2 Pronunciation 3 Dating of Mahabharata 4 bhaktivedanta 5 Did Krishna really mean surrender to me or surrender to the Atman 6 Trivia section 7 What's a Bhishma Parva??

[edit] Comment

• Indeed, it is quite the opposite: one's life on earth must be lived in accordance with greater laws and truths, one must embrace one's temporal duties whilst remaining mindful of a more timeless reality, acting for the sake of action without consideration for the results thereof.

IMO (moved this from GAR as it is an opinion)....Perhaps this should be reworded but more for content rather than grammar. It is the realised or attained spiritual master who may act without consideration for the results. The one who lives life on earth who not only must consider the karma, and also receives the karma. The acquirement of Dharma gives one a transcendental view of karma - of action and reaction or results. I am just thinking the part action without consideration for the results would only be available for those who have achieved Dharma.SriMesh | talk 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Could someone please put a phonetic code of how one is supposed to read the name? I know i'm confused :) Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.224.63 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dating of Mahabharata

I see the traditional dating of the Bhagavad-Gita and Mahabharata as being relevant to this article, because otherwise we are only giving the modern academic belief. Many thousands of people within India believe that both were events that actually happened together, significantly earlier than 150 BC. Surely we should at least include this for the sake of reporting it as a popular belief (if not the most popular?) amongst followers of the text within Hinduism? Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no "traditional dating" of the BG or the MB as texts. All "dating" concerns pertain to the events of the MB itself, a subject that's treated at Mahabharata. rudra (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The article states in the beginning that the Bhagavad-Gita "...was originally written around 3000 BCE." however later (Bhagavad_Gita#Dates) in the article it explains it being written around 500-150BCE, the events which it describes dates around 3000BCE; but not the document itself. I propose a change that actually reflects the contents of the article, "...was originally written around 500-150BCE however the Mahabharata in which it describes dates 3000BCE." Currently, the article contradicts itself and lead to confusion on Talk:Aryan_race#Noteworthy. Keithieopia (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] bhaktivedanta

Hey, wouldn't it be fair to use a more neutral translation considering prabhupada's bias...Domsta333 (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Would Sarvapalli Radhakrishan's translation be ok?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey,Domsta...You are ABSOLUTELY correct! Almost ALL of the articles conserning Vaishnavism are slanted towards the ISKON/Gaudiya "group". It is incredible! I have spend the last week studying every article about vaishnavism and their all slanted and bias towards the ISKON/Gaudiya group, in some way. Either overtly or in a subtle way. They all have ONLY quotes from Prabhupada...and no one else. All these articles have the mindset, flavor, and intentions of the ISKON/Gaudiya group. Every where you go on Wikipedia, it seems that these ISKON/Gaudiya people have created the articles and have a strangle hold on the articles and they are use it as a spring-board for their group. I agree we need to use non-denominational/group qoutes and translations from other sources. I really believe that ALL of the articles need to have a Non-bias slant to them. If we can,...can we work together with ONLY Rudra and redtigerxyz to do this...go through all the articles and make them non-bias....Govinda Ramanuja dasaUSA (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Domsta's original point is valid, but we should ideally quote from a range of Bhagavad-Gita translations, not just one or two. Please add more translations. In reply to Zeuspitar, if this page has a lot of quotations from one Gita it is because only a very small handful of editors have been bothered to add references. It's much easier to complain than it is to actually improve and work on something. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Gouranga(UK) - multiple translations should be used, in the interest of WP:NPOV and a more comprehensive view of the Gita. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. And, I will be actually helping and improving ALL of the ISKON slanted articles. But, the fact remains...it's NOT complaining, this is an issue that must be addressed first and then the need changes can occur. Govinda Ramanuja dasaUSA (talk) 09:20, 03 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did Krishna really mean surrender to me or surrender to the Atman

Hi

I only want to raise this point for discussion as in the introduction of the chapters it is mentioned that Krishna claimed that he was the Supreme Being and Arjuna should surrender to him and words to that effect.

I would like to know from knowledgeable people whether Krishna was using the terms Aham/Atman/Brahman etc. synonymously to refer to the Supreme Being?

If above is true, should the related text be changed?

I am sorry but I could not find any previous discussion on this topic (maybe I dont know how to search for it correctly)

Shreekar (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Shreekar, there are different opinions available on this point. For example, within Vaishnavism, when Krishna says 'mam ekam saranam vraja' (surrender unto Me) it is understood that Krishna is referring to Himself directly, either as Krishna or as Vishnu. Within monist schools, such as Advaita Vedanta on the other hand, the same statement (and similar) is generally interpreted to be referring to the formless absolute. It largely depends on which philosophical background you approach the text from, although the first perspective is more literal according to the text itself. Both atman and Brahman are discussed in more detail in other articles. We can explain the variety of point of views within the article, as long as they are referenced from appropriate sources. Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - the interpretation of the statement(s) is largely dependent upon the philosophical school that a Hindu is from, and an attempt is being made at making the article more comprehensive in the viewpoints and interpretations of these statement(s) in the article. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section

Should this article have one? rudra (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TRIV states that trivial material is only worthy enough to be included in an article if the information can be incorporated into the other sections. From my experience, items relating to pop culture can never be integrated while statistical facts such as the chapter containing the greatest number of shlokas may be significant enough to be included somewhere other than a trivia section. See Template:Trivia. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 06:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Trivia sections are inherently unmanageable grab bags, not to mention that the typical addition (in good faith, of course) is often unsourced or sourced to some random website. Enough material for a separate Subject X in popular culture article might work, maybe. rudra (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The info can be added in Influence section.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You have asked me to justify my Trivia input on this page. I'm not sure why I must justify a fact. Surely the idea of this site is to spread knowledge and fact to further inform the user's knowledge and expand their horizons. When has fact needed justification? What is not interesting fact to you may very well be enlightening to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpinemonkey (talk • contribs) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (copied from user talk page) rudra (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"In popular culture" sections are generally problematic. Nowhere more so than for major works of literature or scripture, which will have been referenced hundreds of times. If we want to create an article called The Gita in the Arts or something, we can do that, but it should be kept out of this article as far as possible. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's a Bhishma Parva??

This article currently starts with, "The Bhagavad Gita is a Sanskrit text from the Bhishma Parva of the Mahabharata epic, comprising 700 verses."

There is no link for Bhishma Parva.

What's a Bhishma Parva???

What I'm really asking is, can this first sentence be clarified, linked better, use terms that are actually in Wikipedia, etc....

Well, it seems Redtigerxyz has since changed the text to now read:

"...from the chapter Bhishma Parva of the Mahabharata epic..."

It is simply the name of one of the parvan ( = "chapters" or "sections" or "books") of the Mahabharata;

Bhishma is the central character of that "book" or "chapter".

See the "Textual history and organization" section of the Mahābhārata article for more information about the other parvan, too.

—Wikiscient— 21:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)