Talk:Bhagavad Gita/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Thank you GaurangaUK

For restoring all the carefully created useful research links that TheRingess wiped out. She has been going from topic to topic wiping out all links and replacing them with an often weak and outdated DMOZ link. Can anything be done to stop her rampage? Ganesham 00:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the link list is too long. I would agree with putting the standard antispam message back in, which is one of the things those of us who support WikiProject Spam often do as a standard antispam measure. While the DMOZ link is a standard suggestion as well, I do not think it should be used here because we do have some good sites. But the number could be cut back, and multiple links to the same web site should be avoided. Currently some of the sites have a very large number of links going to them, both as WP:EL and as reference links. For example, why do we have multiple links to the same site under the section for "Selections"? I would start by cutting those. Buddhipriya 08:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't see a problem with the list being quite long for an article of this type. Any spam links have already been weeded out in the past and it is watched quite diligently for new additions by a number of editors. I don't think it will improve the article if we remove links - I believe they help anyone who wants some further details on the subject from a wide range of sources. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 13:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that some links are appropriate. However according to WP:EL "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." I think the article has too many links and that reduction of the number would benefit the readers. For example, why is there a section for "selections"? This is in effect an editorial comment that those passages or translators are notable. What is the evidence for that notability? I think all of these links should be cut:
  • Here is an example of what looks like blatant linkspam to me: [1].
Also, the article seems to be to be over-relying on links to the ISKCON web site, which presents a very distinct view of the meaning of the Gita. This has the effect of putting a sectarian spin on the article that is not appropriate. Let's see what other editors think about these issues. Buddhipriya 18:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buddhipriya - I couldn't find the spiritual-happiness.com website you give above as a blantant linkspam in the external links section? I agree one's such as that should be removed. I don't see too much of a problem with the other two, Eknath Easwaran's translation is fairly widespread within Europe. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of Easwaran's translation in book form myself. My question is why we are including links to specific passages, and to a partial translation, when we have so many other complete translations listed already. It is overkill and there is no clear reason why those passages are being highlighted in the EL section. Buddhipriya 19:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Since we agree that spiritual-happiness.com is spam, I removed it: [2] Buddhipriya 19:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Easwaran's translation

Easwaran's translation of the Bhagavad Gita is well-renowned and used by many academics as well as individuals. It deserves to be listed along with the other translations - otherwise the list of translations is a bit unrepresentative. It's ISBN is 978-158638-019-9. Similarly his Bhagavad Gita for Daily Living would be a welcome addition to the Commentaries listing. The ISBNs of this 3-volume set are: 0-915132-17-6, 0-915132-18-4, 0-915132-19-2

thank you! DuncanCraig1949 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How Srimad Bhagavad-Gita Was Written

Source http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Articles/vyasa.html In Brahma's birth 1044 trillion and 160 billion years previous to the birth of our present day Brahma and before the Brahma manifesting from Vishnu's ear, Brahma then appeared from the speech of Vishnu. The supreme science of the Bhagavad-Gita again manifested itself as well. At that time a rishi named Suparna received it from him. Suparna would recite the supreme science of the Bhagavad-Gita during the three sandhyas everyday. Knowledge of this supreme science is referred to in the Rig Veda. From the sage Suparna it was obtained by Vayu the wind god who communicated it to those rishis who subsist upon what remains from sacrificial yagna after feeding all the guests. From these rishis the supreme science was obtained by Varuna the god of the ocean. After this knowledge of the supreme science of the Bhagavad-Gita disappeared from this world.

The Bhagavad-Gita is passed on many stages till it reaches the current Brahma. BalanceRestored 14:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For the present article, this history is needlessly complex. Better to give the history found in the Gita itself (4.1).
Cordially,
O Govinda 10:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that the history section could be significantly expanded, including details on the development of the various content strata within the Gita itself. I have not made an effort to expand that type of material because there have been religious objections to changes that would make the article more encyclopedic in tone and more balanced in its coverage of what is in the Gita. I would be happy to add more citations related to the dating of the writing of the work if desired. These will support what the article says now, that it was an incremental addition to the Mahabharata at the time mentioned in the article, and that it specifically addresses certain issues that were topical at that time. Buddhipriya 20:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MR Yardi and BORI

All this loving detail about "shloaks" in the Mahabharata is off-topic for this article. Further, Yardi is not at BORI, and BORI publishing his research on the basis of having used BORI materials is not an unqualified endorsement of his work. Even if it were, his research has not been published in peer-reviewed journals, nor has it been cited widely. As such his research simply counts as a data point. One rather topical place where he has been cited -- indeed, as just a data point in a spectrum of views -- is this paper by John Brockington. Yardi is far from the last word on the subject. rudra (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)