Talk:Krishna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Krishna article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Krishna was the Hinduism Collaboration of the week for the week starting on 8 May 2006.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3



Contents

[edit] Krishna as the Supreme God in Vaishnavism

I just would like user Redtigerxyz to kindly explain to me, why he takes this version of definition of Krishna within Vaishnavism as "no-neutral".

Within most Vaishnava traditions Vishnu is considered the Supreme God and the source of all avatars, while Krishna is worshiped as a full avatar of Vishnu and regarded as non-different from Him. In some Vaishnava traditions, such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism,[1] the Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, Krishna is worshipped as svayam bhagavan, the source of all avatars including Vishnu.

Please kindly enlighten me, in which Vaishnava tradition Krishna is NOT regarded as God (with capital "G") and is viewed as an inferior deity and different from Vishnu? Take Sri Vaisnavism, for example, Krishna is not just any avatar, He is a complete avatar of Vishnu, non-different from Vishnu Himself. We are talking about a monotheistic tradition here, you know.Gaura79 (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to assure you that there are some on our list of editors who will disagree with you. And it is easy to expain unlike the concept of non-difference. I personally feel that the above should be worded to avoid the POV conflict.

Within all Vaishnava traditions Vishnu is believed to be the Supreme God and the source of all avatars, while Krishna is often worshiped as a full avatar of Vishnu or regarded as non-different from Him. In some Vaishnava traditions, such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, Krishna is worshipped as svayam bhagavan, believed to be the source of all avatars including Vishnu.


I would like to hear the opinions of other Vaishnavas on the forum if this is acceptable.

Wikidās ॐ 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the opinion of Sri Vaishnavas:

We accept it though, for Lord Krishna is none else then Lord Narayana Himself, yet, He is only one avathara among many. That has been very clearly described in Srimad Bhagavatham. The difference is, in other avatharas, Lord chose only a few qualities for His activities, whereas in Krishna avathara, He appeared with many of His divine qualities. And also, the qualities of all avatharas are seen there. That is why, Krishna avatharas is considered to be the “Paripurna Avathara”.

See more here:User:Zeuspitar#Prominent Sri Sampradayam Swami says about Vishnu and Krishna-PLEASE READ! Gaura79 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My take:

Within Vaishnava tradition of Hinduism, Krishna and Vishnu are believed to be the Supreme God; while Vishnu is worshipped as the original Lord, the source of all avatars, Krishna is regarded as a full avatar of Vishnu, but doesn't play a prominent role in the worship. Some Vaishnava traditions, such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, hold a different view, considering Krishna to be svayam bhagavan, the original Supreme God and the source of all avatars including Vishnu.

Gaura79 (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The following statement is not correct:

Within all Vaishnava traditions Vishnu is believed to be ...... the source of all avatars,

Gaura79 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


I like the first bit. Within Vaishnava tradition of Hinduism, - I know that there are differences, but there is much more in common then different, and that is especially true as far as worship is concerned.

Within Vaishnava tradition of Hinduism, Krishna and Vishnu are believed to be the Supreme God; while Vishnu is believed to be original Lord, the source of all avatars, Krishna is regarded as a full avatar of Vishnu, but doesn't play a prominent role in the worship of some traditions. Some Vaishnava traditions, such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, hold a different view, considering Krishna to be svayam bhagavan, the original Supreme God the source of Narayana.

What we see is that some do not know their own traditions and other do not respect other traditions. Actually avataras always come from Vishnu. However Vishnu himself is an avatara of Narayana, who according to 3 above traditions (3 out of 5) has a source of Svayam bhagavan Krishna.

--Wikidās ॐ 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[Note - many traditions see Vishnu and Narayana as one and the same, with neither being an avatar of the other, but with both being names of the same.] --Shruti14 t c s 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is just an introduction to the whole article. We should keep the things as simple as possible, because 90 % of the people who are going to read it probably never even heard of Vaishnavism, but certainly do have an idea what Hinduism is. And it's important to make people understand, that for Vaishnavas, who are the majority of all Hindus, Krishna is not on the same level as Indra, Brahma, etc. The theological subtleties of every tradition can be disscused later in the article.Gaura79 (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a separate section dedicated to an Avatara theology of Krishna could just do it?

I actually do not mind the following then:

Within Vaishnava tradition of Hinduism, Krishna and Vishnu are believed to be the Supreme God. Some Vaishnava traditions, such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, have a specific preference to Krishna, svayam bhagavan.

And than a separate section can deal with the rest of the theology of the avataras and Krishnas place in it according to different schools.

Wikidās ॐ 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The one problem with that phrasing is that it is saying two individuals are the singular Supreme God, which is likely to confuse people. We're supposed to structure all of our content so that those who don't know the subject can readily understand it. Maybe something like, "The exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu, particularly regarding which is "primary" to the other, is one of the more frequently discussed issues in the Vaishnava branch of Hinduism," would be enough for the lead, with the rest of the material following in the appropriate section. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I actually like the phrase The exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu, particularly regarding which is "primary" to the other, is one of the more frequently discussed issues in the Vaishnava branch of Hinduism, however its only in the recent years that such lack the traditional (territorial) separation that has prompted this discussion. Gaudiya are expanding rapidly in about 4 of 5 different groups and actually hardly debate, because, according to them there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that Krishna is an avatara of Vishnu and then say BUT he is original. See for example: http://www.romapadaswami.com/?q=node/2554 - we hardly debate this point - besides as of here and that is mainly with our friend User:Zeuspitar. We normally debate with those who say that Krishna is covered by maya. Wikidās ॐ
The "The exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu, particularly regarding which is "primary" to the other, is one of the more frequently discussed issues in the Vaishnava branch of Hinduism," phrase is one I like as well. I also support a separate section on views of Krishna and I think this might actually make a good start to the paragraph if we have one. --Shruti14 t c s 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikidas mentioned; that "Vishnu is an avatara of Narayan"....just like Shruti said...Vishnu/Narayana are the SAME name of God, this gives new meaning to what wikidas said "What we see is that some do not know their own traditions and other do not respect other traditions".. He also said that "3 out of 5 traditions" believe in Krishna. Again, I have stated many times...it is NOT a numbers game. First was the Sri Sampradayam, then Madhvacharya broke off, then all the other broke off through the centuries. The later groups believe in Krishna, because they believe in the later books;itihasas, puranas, inner group books like the caitanya caram. By the older groups, because they follow the older scriptures...say that Vishnu/Narayana is first. Older Scriptures/Vishnu. New books/Krishna. Rig Veda and Main Upanishads/Vishnu-Narayana. New Upanishads, mis-quoted verses from Bhagavata Purana and inner group books/Krishna. Rig Veda-Shruti-Vishnu. Bhagavata purana verse-Krishna. Older scripture/Vishnu. Or, newer books/Krishna. Shruti14 and others, please remember this when others talk about "3 out of 5" thing again please.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
As for "our friend zeuspitar", if it wasnt for me, ALOT of the Hindu related pages would be ISKCON dominated; Shruti14 and many others also have said the same thing;that there is a strong ISKCON slant on the Hindu pages. The fact remains, the older Vaishnava sampradayams uphold to the Shruti or the older scriptures that say...Vishnu is the first. While ISKCON/Gaudiyas follow the newer books. Plain and simple. Wikidas and other ISKCON-ites have been and are STILL trying to write every thing that has to do with Vaishnavism and Hinduism with their Group slant. I am sorry if I come off combative, or in the words of wikidas..."disruptive". But, in the face of this BIAS, I have to be like Parasurama. And, uphold REAL Vedic-Hindu truth against latter-day "group" beliefs, especially those that are not accepted by the greater Hindu community.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do we have to start with a conflict of ideas in the first paragraph?

I guess the result can be yes, that is the first thing people have to know about Krishna. And then someone may suggest, keep it somewhere in the middle, start with most common and clear concepts first?

Why not then this

Vaishnava tradition of Hinduism is monotheistic in the understanding of Krishna.

And then the rest will follow in a separate section avatara avatari purna sampurnam para-narayana narayana you can write a few wikis on that. Wikidās ॐ 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

proposed lead


Krishna (कृष्ण in Devanagari, kṛṣṇa in IAST, pronounced [ˈkr̩ʂɳə] in classical Sanskrit) is a deity worshiped across many traditions of Hinduism.

Vaishnava tradition of Hinduism is monotheistic in its understanding of Krishna.[1][1][2][3][4][5][6] A distinguishing feature of the Vaisnava teachings is that God, as Krishna or Vishnu,[7][8] is a real being and His creation is also real.[8][9]
Krishna is often described as having the appearance of a dark-skinned man during his earthly incarnation, often depicted as a young cowherd boy playing a flute (as in the Bhagavata Purana) or a youthful prince giving philosophical direction and guidance to others (as in the Bhagavad Gita).[8]There are a number of perspectives on Krishna within a number of traditions in India.[10]
Krishna and the stories associated with him appear across a broad spectrum of Hindu philosophical and theological traditions.[11][9] Though they sometimes differ in details reflecting the concerns of a particular tradition, some core features are shared by all.[10] These include a divine incarnation, a pastoral childhood and youth, and life as a heroic warrior and teacher.[7]

Can someone disagree with that? --Wikidās ॐ 20:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite, and disagree a bit. I believe that any intro should be simple, short, and useful to people who don't know very much about the subject. Most people who use this will not know what Vaishnavas are, let alone know or care about the niceties of the previous arguments. I'm not suggesting that these arguments are not relevant to the article, just that they do not belong in the intro.
Hence, I'll suggest either leaving out the entire paragraph - Vaishnava tradition of Hinduism is monotheistic in its understanding of Krishna. A distinguishing feature of the Vaisnava teachings is that God, as Krishna or Vishnu, is a real being and His creation is also real. - or moving it later into the article, as appropriate.
(p.s., is it not the case that honorific title case in pronouns e.g. '... and His creation...' is against Wiki policy? It might be ok for for the word 'God', since in this case it also implies the 'one' god; but not in pronouns).
Imc (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In theory, your suggestion is a good idea. However, I agree with the above - keep it simple and informative. Perhaps the theological differences should be kept in a separate section in the main article. Many reading the article will have never heard of Krishna and want to know who Krishna is and won't know (or care) about theological differences about viewing Him until they know that much. For this reason I think we should move the information about the differences in viewing Him to a separate section and keep the mention of it simple in the lead paragraph(s). As for Wikipedia's policies on honorifics, see WP:HONOR, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics, and Wikipedia:MOS#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents. --Shruti14 t c s 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Its just a quote from the MOS. a light reading
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.
I know I should have just given you the link. But I still think its better to read it. Wikidās ॐ 22:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The introductory part of the article came out pretty good, but I think we should also make it clear that Vaishnavas are the majority of all Hindus.Gaura79 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybey that should be for the Vaishnava article not here?
why duzenthis article got other perspectives? Im not talking about other religions/...

I dont like the sentence "Vaishnava tradition of Hinduism is monotheistic in its understanding of Krishna." as the second sentence becauze its too awkwerd and confusing - maybe word ti differently or place somtehing before it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.24.139 (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should discuss deletion of the section. I think we discussed it before already. Lets see if everyone agrees with the deletion. [1]

--Wikidās ॐ 20:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about current lede

I share Imc's opinion that the article lede should be written with the view that even a person unfamiliar with Hinduism or Vaishnava theology should be able to get a basic understanding of the subject and be enticed to read the whole article. I think some of the recent modifications have taken us further away from the goal, and I have several concerns about the current lede. I'll outline a few here:

  • "Vaishnava tradition of Hinduism is monotheistic in its understanding of Krishna.[1][2][3][4][5][6] " This statement has six citations appended to it, but I am not sure which one actually supports this extraordinarily broad claim. For instance:
    • Beck, page 39, which is cited both as reference 1 and 6, does not make this claim, and in fact the central theme of the book (which is an excellent source for the article) is the variety of ways Krishna is viewed in Hinduism. Also the quote from Beck is inaccurate.
    • Citations 2 and 3 are specifically about the Chaitanya movement and not good sources for making broad claims about Vaishnavism. (I am not sure yet whether they actually support the statement either)
    • Can someone provide the appropriate quote and context from, Ojha's "Aspects of Medieval Indian Society and Culture" that supports the statement ? The subject of the book indicates that it may not be relevant, but I would like to reserve judgment.
    • The last source is a quote from Bhag. Purana, which is a primary source and hence not appropriate except when used in conjunction with secondary sources. Also, if anything, the statement is closer to qualified monism rather than monotheism.
  • "A distinguishing feature of the Vaisnava teachings is that God, as Krishna or Vishnu,[7][8] is a real being and His creation is also real.[8][9]" has three refs attached to it. The statement appears to be almost a direct quote from this ICJ article; the other two sources are also specifically Gaudiya sources, and one of them, a "fortnightly mini-magazine" would not qualify as a reliable source. These sources may be ok if we were citing the Gaudiya or ISKCON views, but not for opinions attributed to Vaishnava's in general. For the latter we should use academic, rather than sectarian sources. More importantly, the statement is unlikely to make any sense to a reader who is not familiar with the nuances of the Advaita Vedanta/Dvaita vs Achintya Bheda Abheda schools of thought.
  • The exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu, particularly regarding which is "primary" to the other, is one of the more frequently discussed issues in the Vaishnava majority branch of Hinduism. This statement may be defensible, although the tone is somewhat unencyclopedic. But the main problem is that it uses adherents.com as a citation, which only supports the "majority branch of Hinduism" part of the statement, without being relevant to the main claim.

I think we need to be more careful in selecting sources and citing them appropriately. Having an uncited statement is bad, but adding references that are either unreliable, irrelevant, or representing of a singular POV is perhaps worse - because the latter create the illusion that the claim is well-supported and readers and editors are less skeptical than they should be.
I don't want to unilaterally undo the changes in the lede, but I would invite other editors to chime in. A request: lets keep the discussion focussed on the content, reference and organization issue and not point fingers at any editors or sects. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose the following lead:

Krishna (कृष्ण in Devanagari, kṛṣṇa in IAST, pronounced [ˈkr̩ʂɳə] in classical Sanskrit) is a deity worshiped across many traditions of Hinduism. The adherents of the Vaishnava branch of Hinduism, who represent the majority of all Hindus, regard Vishnu as the Supreme God and the source of all avatars, while Krishna is usually worshiped as a full avatar of Vishnu or regarded as non-different from Him.[1] In some Vaishnava traditions, such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism,[1][2] the Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, Krishna is worshiped as svayam bhagavan, believed to be the source of all avatars including Vishnu.[3][4] The exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu, particularly regarding which is "primary" to the other, is one of the more frequently discussed topics in the Vaishnava tradition.[12] Vaishnava tradition is a monotheistic branch of Hinduism.[1][2][3][4][13][6] A distinguishing feature of the Vaisnava teachings is that God, as Krishna or Vishnu,[7][8] is a real being and His creation is also real.[8][9] There are a number of perspectives on Krishna within other traditions in India.[10]
Krishna is often described as having the appearance of a dark-skinned man during his earthly incarnation, often depicted as a young cowherd boy playing a flute (as in the Bhagavata Purana) or a youthful prince giving philosophical direction and guidance to others (as in the Bhagavad Gita).[8]
Krishna and the stories associated with him appear across a broad spectrum of Hindu philosophical and theological traditions.[14][9] Though they sometimes differ in details reflecting the concerns of a particular tradition, some core features are shared by all.[10] These include a divine incarnation, a pastoral childhood and youth, and life as a heroic warrior and teacher.[7]

Gaura79 (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Gaura, I think you missed the point I was making. Many of the statements in the current lede are (1) unsupported by the attached citations, (2) would be unclear to someone who is not knowledgeable of the subject already and (3) are overly broad. These problems, unfortunately, will not be solved by rearranging the order of the sentences. Abecedare (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
1) Perhaps you're right about the first point, but let's put it this way: can you cite any reliable sources that would disagree with what is written in the introductory part of the article? In my humble opinion, what is stated there is pretty much obvious for anybody sufficiently familiar with the matter. 2) I think the intro gives a simple introduction, but at the same time looks more deep into the matter. Some parts of it may not be easily understood by someone not familiar with the subject and so what? Do you suggest we should write it having in mind someone mentally challenged? Why underestimate so much Wikipedia readers. 3) It should be broad and give a summary of the whole article.Gaura79 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The question is not whether we disagree with what is in the introduction, or if there are references disagreeing with it. It is about relevance; about encyclopaedic writing; about providing a good and unbiased introduction.
The intro now has become increasingly disjointed and biased toward explaining the importance of Krishna to Vaishnava beliefs, and the differences between these beliefs. The original source material for Krishna, the main text of the 18 parvas of the Mahabharata, is not mentioned now. It seems to me that it is more important to refer to Krishna's role in the Mahabharata, since since this is more important to Indian traditions and Hinduism as a whole.
For some of the recent additions such as this - A distinguishing feature of the Vaisnava teachings is that God, as Krishna or Vishnu,[7][8] is a real being and His creation is also real - I cannot deduce any useful meaning. It seems to me that it only has meaning when compared to those who believe that he is not real, or that creation is not real. What is this doing at the head of the article?
Imc (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The focus of the current lead has largely shifted to Vaishnava theology and doesn't talk very much about Krishna, who should be the primary subject of the lead. I propose somewhat of a lead rewrite. For reference, to see the lead of a well-written article about a Hindu deity, see the FA Ganesha - something like this would be better for the article. --Shruti14 t c s 22:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the following two sentences from the lead for reasons stated above:

The Vaishnava tradition of Hinduism is monotheistic in its understanding of Krishna.[1][2][3][4][15][6] A distinguishing feature of the Vaisnava teachings is that God, as Krishna or Vishnu,[7][8] is a real being and His creation is also real.[8][9]

If we find appropriate sources for these claims they can be readded to the relevant section, or article. I may have broken some named refs in the process; I'll try to repair that damage soon. Abecedare (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have finished repairing all the refs I broke.
However, we still need to check whether these and other references actually support the statements they are attached to. Abecedare (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose to remove a couple of lines from the current lead and make it as follows:

Krishna (कृष्ण in Devanagari, kṛṣṇa in IAST, pronounced [ˈkr̩ʂɳə] in classical Sanskrit) is a deity worshiped across many traditions of Hinduism. Krishna is often described as having the appearance of a dark-skinned man during his earthly incarnation, often depicted as a young cowherd boy playing a flute (as in the Bhagavata Purana) or a youthful prince giving philosophical direction and guidance (as in the Bhagavad Gita).[8] Krishna and the stories associated with him appear across a broad spectrum of Hindu philosophical and theological traditions.[16][9] Though they sometimes differ in details reflecting the concerns of a particular tradition, some core features are shared by all.[10] These include a divine incarnation, a pastoral childhood and youth, and life as a heroic warrior and teacher. The worship of Krishna in Hinduism is part of Vaishnavism. All Vaisnava traditions recognize Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu; others identify Krishna with Vishnu; while traditions, such as, Gaudiya Vaishnavism,[6][2] Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, also regard Krishna as the svayam bhagavan, original form of God. [17][18] [19]

Gaura79 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Etymology

"The term Krishna in Sanskrit has the literal meaning of "black" or "dark", and is used as a name to describe someone with dark skin." shouldn't this be "The term Syama in Sanskrit has the literal meaning of "black" or "dark", and is used as a name to describe someone with dark skin." or "The term Krishna in Sanskrit has the literal meaning of "the all-attractive One"" Syama (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The current meaning and text is correct. Look in any academic dictionary; e.g., online at [2] (search for kRSNa using their transliteration system). Shyama (search for zyama) has a similar meaning of course. There is no mention of 'all attractive' in the dictionary. I suspect that this recent meaning in the writings of some schools is born of simple colour prejudice. If so, people who follow these schools would be advised to do themselves a favour and stop referring to it. Imc (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Besides dictionary meaning of the word, there are quite a few meanings that are defined in the context of the religious understanding of this particular Deity. Hardly any use to list them all, unless there are verifiable sources to back it up. Wikidās ॐ 08:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone with a basic knowledge of Sanskrit will agree the word "Krishna" means "black" in Sanskrit. 'all attractive' meaning needs a reference.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Reference of what kind? You just removed 2 references. Do you need Sanskrit lesson or what? I removed them right back. Since you asked for reference. Wikidās ॐ 20:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikidās, Redtigerxyz was referring to reliable sources, and not sources that do not meet the WP:RS criteria. Also, in Sanskrit, "Krishna" does mean "black" (or "dark") and the definition "all-attractive" is a Gaudiya-specific definition (AFAIK not supported by any other Vaishnava sect, including other "Krishna-first" groups, due to the original Sanskrit meaning). --Shruti14 t c s 03:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with Shruti and Redtigerxyz; the actual sanskrit translation is "Black". And, ONLY the ISKCON/Gaudiyas think it is "all-attractive". Alot of the Gaudiya dont know Sanskrit.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)
I have reverted this edit by User:Wikidas which added two references to the sentence, The Gaudiya tradition explains the primary meaning of the name Krishna as being “all-attractive”., because:

  1. The journal in the first citation was mislabeled, "Antimicrobial Resistance" instead of "Emerging infectious diseases"; it said nothing about "Gaudiya Vaishnavas"; but more importantly the CDC publication does not even close to being an authoritative source on this topic.
  2. The second source, which is acceptable as a source for the ISKCON viewpoint and makes a causal use of the phrase "Krishna, the 'all-attractive'", says nothing about the primary meaning of Krishna. (This deficiency can perhaps be remedied by rephrasing the sentence itself)

The only reason I am bringing this issue to the talk page, is because recently I have observed Wikidas add several questionable citations and citations that don't truly support the statements they are appended to (see above section for several examples). I hope that editors will keep an eye on his edits and referencing. Abecedare (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

this one was only on the topic of the meaning used (even in CDC publication) Wikidās ॐ
this one is the example of common use by Gaudiya Vaishnava.Wikidās ॐ
thanks for check them out, after 50 way here and there edits the references moved. I did not bother to comment because of it. Some of the references were removed mainly because of POV by the other editor. But its always good to check refs.
BTW I will add reference to Gaudiya Vaishnava source. Since you have asked please do not remove it. Thanks. Wikidās ॐ 20:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what Wikidas is saying above, but he has re-added the mislabeled and deficient citations, as well as the citation to a ISKCON fortnightly email newsletter, which clearly fails WP:RS. I'll wait for some other editors to weight in. Abecedare (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ISKCON/Gaudiya references (and others) are acceptable if and only if they are a) reliable sources, b) relevant to the topic, and c) the material derived from the reference is not original research. Any references and derived information that do not meet this criteria, ISKCON or not, must be removed and/or replaced with a better source. I'm afraid that most, if not all, of the re-added sources do not meet this criteria. If this information is to be added and cited, better references are needed, or else must be removed. --Shruti14 t c s 02:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that Wikidās was stating that his refs were ISKCON/Gaudiya sources and did not want you (or anyone else, myself included) to remove them on this basis. However, the sources fail WP:RS (or in the case of the CDC publication, not authoritative on the subject) and will have to be removed. --Shruti14 t c s 02:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I completely disagree. The sources are reliable sources and are used on vast number of sites. Moreover they are reliable for the specific view of expressed - Gaudiya. There can be no doubt about it if one is Gaudiya. Wikidās ॐ 07:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious sources are reliable sources for religious viewpoints, so it's not uncommon for religion articles to use religious sources to explain the meaning of any religious title and nature of the role that religious leaders have in the religion or religious organization (which are, after all, religious matters). I wouldn't use them for non-religious or non-routine information. Please be reasonable. They are reliable sources, you know it. Wikidās ॐ 08:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Shruti and Redtigerxyz; the actual sanskrit translation of Krishna is "Black". And, ONLY the ISKCON/Gaudiyas think it is "all-attractive". Alot of the Gaudiya dont know Sanskrit.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You just confirmed that Prabhupada is reliable source for the specific meaning as its interpreted by Gaudiya. I thus insist that his references were included. Wikidās ॐ 08:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


kṛṣir bhū-vācakaḥ śabdo
ṇaś ca nirvṛti-vācakaḥ
tayor aikyaḿ paraḿ brahma
kṛṣṇa ity abhidhīyate
SYNONYMS
kṛṣiḥ — the verbal root kṛṣ; bhū — attractive existence; vācakaḥ — signifying; śabdaḥ — word; ṇaḥ — the syllable ṇa; ca — and; nirvṛti — spiritual pleasure; vācakaḥ — indicating; tayoḥ — of both; aikyam — amalgamation; param — supreme; brahma — Absolute Truth; kṛṣṇaḥ — Lord Kṛṣṇa; iti — thus; abhidhīyate — is called.
This is a verse from the Mahābhārata (Udyoga-parva 71.4) as quoted and already referred in the discussion. ;http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/9/30/en


--Wikidās ॐ 08:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC) (and reformatted by Imc (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC))
1. From the Cologne Sanskrit dictionary, already referred to; the root kṛṣ (kRS which btw is not kRSNa) has a meaning 'draw', as in draw a ploughshare. The meaning of 'attractive' is not mentioned in this text. The word bhū, from the same source, means to exist, to come into being, and many other things, but not 'attractive existence'.
2. Udyoga parva 71.4; see the Ganguli translation at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05071.htm which cannot be said to support the suggestion.
3. Prabhupada is a reliable source for the texts written by him. There is no reason to take him as RS for anything else when it is contradicted by other obvious evidence.
Imc (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You must off the wall to suggest that because a dictionary made in Germany gives a different translation, therefor Gaudiya Vaishnavas can not have any other translation as part of the cannon. There are so many translations of the name Krishna... btw http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/9/30/en is part of the Gaudiya literature and is explaining in the context of other verses. Ganguli is not Gaudiya (even I know that). If you find any other Gaudiya evidence that translates this verse to mean something else, let us know. Wikidās ॐ 10:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Etymology (see a dictionary) is a branch of linguistic science concerned with word formations and development of meaning. Prabhupada was a religious leader or theologian; he was not a linguist. He does not give an etymology of Krishna, what he gives may perhaps be best described as 'folk-etymology', a term that is also in modern dictionaries. Gaudiya may put it own interpretation on the name, but that is not etymology. And Vaishnavism does not own Krishna.
btw, if you consider that the fact that the dictionary is 'made in Germany' is relevant, please also give your place of birth so I can consider its relevance to your arguments. The actual dictionary entries quoted are from Monier-Williams who despite his Christian evalengical beliefs was 'made in India' so presumably is an acceptable source. Imc (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In this case Etymology presumes specific socio-religious context, within this context particular definitions remain. Otherwise you will be just left with is a dictionary definition and that is NOT entry for a biography as is the case here, this requires cultural context, that is clearly done by quotes from different traditions. Wikidās ॐ 13:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC) BTW It appears to me that original title ==The name== is better and reflects the elements discussed better. Wikidās ॐ 15:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The meaning of "Krishna" as "all-attractive" is a specifically Gaudiya definition. It is relevant within a Gaudiya context, and should be labeled as such. It is not a mainstream definition or linguistic Sanskrit definition, as in Sanskrit "Krishna" means "black". --Shruti14 t c s 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not argue with that, as its the fact. However it spread out from 'just' Gaudiya to be even a definition used in a medical journal:-) Yes, yes it should be very clear that its a Gaudiya definition. Was it not clear? Wikidās ॐ 08:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna and Alvars

The following content (indicated by bolding) has recently been added to the article lede:

Within Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, as well historically by alvars and other early adepts such as Bilvanmangala Krishna is worshipped as the source of all other avatars (including Vishnu).

The cited references are:

However the references only seem to suggest that Krihna was worshipped ardently by some Alvars, and was the subject of the medieval composition Krishna-Karnamrita, but do not mention Krishna as the source of all avatars, as is being claimed. Can we discuss this here on the talk page to reach some consensus, and if need find appropriate sources ? Abecedare (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the Alvars were all Vaishnavas, but while they did worship Vishnu and all of His avatars, they never believed Krishna to be the source of them; they believed Vishnu is the source of the avatars. I have searched multiple times, and have yet to find a single source (even one that would undeniably fail WP:RS) that states that the Alvars believed Krishna as the source of the avatars. Also, the sources provided do not support the "as well historically by alvars and other early adepts such as Bilvanmangala" part of the statement above. Until we can find a reliable source that can prove the statement, it should be removed, as there is nothing I can find to support it. --Shruti14 t c s 23:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A quick note: I have currently removed the statement from the article. We can readd it if a good source is found. Abecedare (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Alvars worshiped Krsna under the name Vaasudev. Maybe that will improve your search through references. (Who wrote this? ---Govinda Ramanuja dasa)
First off, The alwars KNEW that Krishna was Vishnu! The Alwars worshipped Vishnu/Narayana! Because it says so in the pre-itihasas text. Some of the alwars might of had Krishna as their ista-deva. But, But they knew that Vishnu is the First. Many hindus worship Krishna as their ista-deva, but, know Him to be Vishnu/Narayana. One of the main Divya-prabantams intoned by Sri Vaishnavas is the beautiful and powerful "Thiruppavai"...which is dedicated to Krishna! But, every one knows that Krishna is Vishnu. No questions asked. When it comes to things like this...we should and Must qoute and follow scripture! And, not some 13th-15th century Gaudiya or other Schism group books or books by others outside of the Sanatana-Dharma. And, the qoute from Bilvanmangala, is absolutely unfounded and the book that is was in is minor and trival. We must qoute scripture/Sastra and not some outside sources. With things like this, we are NOT going to find any thing that will justify Krishna as the source and, most perposterously, that the alwars BELEIVED that Krishna is the source. We need to ask Vedically trainned pandits for questions like this, and, The majority of them will tell you that, according to Sastra and Sadhu, Vishnu/Narayana in Vaikunta is the source. The only people saying other-wise are the ISKCON/Gaudiyas Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK the Alwars are often associated with Sri Vaishnavism and sometimes other 'mainstream' sects which is why we can't seem to find any sources supporting the statement above that has now been removed. --Shruti14 t c s 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Alvars were loosely ideologically affiliated:
The Alvar Andal's popular collection of songs Tiruppavai, in which she conceives of herself as a Gopi, is perhaps the oldest work of this genre. Kulashekhara's Mukundamala was another notable offering of this early stage.
he lokāḥ śṛṇuta prasūti-maraṇa-vyādheś cikitsām imāṁ
yoga-jñāḥ samudāharanti munayo yāṁ yājñavalkyādayaḥ
antar-jyotir ameyam ekam amṛtaṁ kṛṣṇākhyam āpīyatāṁ
tat pītaṁ paramauṣadhaṁ vitanute nirvāṇam ātyantikam

O people, please hear of this treatment for the disease of birth and death! It is the name of Kṛṣṇa. Recommended by Yājñavalkya and other expert yogīs steeped in wisdom, this boundless, eternal inner light is the best medicine, for when drunk it bestows complete and final liberation. Just drink it![20]

– Kulasekhara, Mukunda Mala Stotra, translation by Satsvarupa dasa Goswami

Of the many hundreds of poetic Sanskrit stotras-songs of glorification offered to the Supreme Lord, His devotees, and the holy places of His pastimes—King Kulaśekhara's Mukunda-mālā-stotra is one of the most perennially famous. Some say that its author conceived it as a garland (mālā) of verses offered for Lord Kṛṣṇa's pleasure.[20]
I will look for some more evidence, but your understand the fine line between the two before you jump in to judge or consider Alvars in Sri Sampradaya.Wikidās ॐ 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? The Alvars ARE Sri Sampradayam! What is your point? What are you trying to prove with what you wrote above in context with the alwars? The fact remains that the Alwars ARE Sri Sampradayam.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to have it from first and secondary sources on Alvars - did any of Alvars EVER said that all alvars belong to the sampradaya? Did any scholars ever say such a nonsense?. As far as I can see all five main traditions are inspired and resulted from Alvars. As part of the legacy of the Alvars, five Vaishnava philosophical traditions (sampradayas) have developed.Mittal, S. G. R. Thursby (2006). Religions of South Asia: An Introduction. Routledge.  Page 27."As part of the legacy of the Alvars, five Vaisnava (devotion to Visnu) philosophical traditions (sampradaya) emerged that were based on the teachings of ..."

See also[3] at least some Alvars existed before the concept of Sri Sampradaya or Nathamunis theory. On the other hand Sri claims that they belong to it, did any early Alvar ever said something to this effect? Wikidās ॐ 09:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


While it is uncertain as to which sampradaya the Alwars belonged to, Sri Vaishnavas and Madhvas are especially particular as labeling them as part of theirs. In fact, Sri Vaishnavas consider them so important that they are often automatically labeled as following that sampradaya. (By contrast, I have never seen or heard of a Gaudiya, Nimbarka, or Vallabha follower who has classified the Alwars as belonging to their sampradaya.) However, nearly all recognize that whichever sampradaya they belonged to, they worshipped Vishnu as the source of all avatars, which was typical at the time, and a key concept of Sri Vaishnavas and Madhvas. --Shruti14 t c s 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Shruti, the reason its not clear to which sampradaya the Alvars belonged to among the current sampradayas because at the time of their Bhagavata poetry Sri Sampradaya did not exist. Nor did any of them were of any particular school of philosophy, they were free radicals... most likely in the Bhagavata tradition. Its an opinion of some, bhagavata sampradaya already existed and Alvars actually made it popular with their bhakti poetry. Its a conclusive in many works:

Credit of giving popular base to the Bhagavata cult goes to the twelve Vaishnava saints, collectively know as Alvars who flourished in the Tamil country between the fith and ninth centuries. They composed beautiful songs, Prabandham, describing the eventful childhood of Krishna including this romance with the Gopa girls

– Chapter:Krishna and His Cult Krishna Theatre in India Page 8 , M.L. Varalpande, 2002

If you do not mind, this can be used as a reference to the current bhakti movement article and this Krishna article. Let me know what you think. As its a known fact that "praise of Krsna begins with the South Indian Alvars"JSTOR: History of Religions, Vol. 12, No. 2, (1972 ), pp. 149-180. www.jstor.org. Retrieved on 2008-04-30.
Kinsley, D. (1972). "Without Krsna There Is No Song". History of Religions 12 (2): 149. 
Dehejia, V. (1990). Antal and Her Path of Love: Poems of a Woman Saint from South India. State University of New York Press. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2058600 also see: Vaudeville, Charlotte. "Evolution of Love-Symbolism in Bhagavatism." Journal of the American Oriental Society (1962): 31-40
Im sure Alvars and in particular Antal would be opposed of putting her in a sectarian box of this or that sampradaya, even in the context of Wiki. We, in our movement of Krishna consciousness at least for the last 125 years refer to the life of Ramanuja, translate his works, study Alvars and publish their poetry, so they belong to 'us' (if there is 'us') as much, even if they were first deified by the founders of Ramanuja line.
Wikidās ॐ 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of Vaasudeva (Krisna) and NOT Vishnu worship as the beginning of Vaisnavism

There is evidence that worship of Vasudeva and not Vishnu came at the beginning of Vaishnavism. This earliest phase was established from the sixth to the fifth centuries BCE at the time of Panini, who in his Astadhyayi explained the word vasudevaka as a bhakta, devotee, of Vasudeva. Another cult which flourished with the decline of Vedism was centred on Krishna, the deified tribal hero and religious leader of the Yadavas. The Vrsnis and Yadavas came closer together, resulting in the merging of Vasudeva and Krishna, This was as early as the fourth century BCE according to evidence in Megasthenes and in the Arthasastra of Kautilya. Vasudeva-Krishna liberates the throne of Mathura from his evil kinsman Kamsa, travels to the city of Dvaraka on the Arabian Sea to establish a dynasty, and in the Mahabharata he counsels his cousins the Pandavas in their battle with the Kauravas. This then took sectarian form as the Pancaratra or Bhagavata religion. A tribe of ksatriyas, warriors, called the Satvata, were bhagavatas and were seen by the Greek writer Megasthenes at the end of the fourth century BCE. This sect then combined with the cult of Narayana, a demiurge god-creator who later became one of the names of Vishnu. Soon after the start of the Common Era, the Abhiras or cowherds of a foreign tribe, contributed Gopala Krishna, the young Krishna, who was adopted by the Abhiras and worked as a cowherd and flirted with the cowherdesses. Only as a mature young man did he return to Mathura and slay Kamsa. The Vasudeva, Krishna, and Gopala cults became integrated through new legends into Greater Krishnaism, the second and most outstanding phase of Vaishnavism. Being non-Vedic, Krishnaism then started to affiliate with Vedism so that the orthodox would find it acceptable. Vishnu of the Rg Veda was assimilated into Krishnaism and became the supreme God who incarnates whenever necessary to save the world. Krishna became one of the avataras of Vishnu. In the eighth century CE the bhakti of Vaishnavism came into contact with Shankara's Advaita doctrine of spiritual monism and world-illusion. This philosophy was considered destructive of bhakti and important opposition in South India came from Ramanuja in the eleventh century and Madhva in the fifteenth century. Ramanuja stressed Vishnu as Narayana and built on the bhakti tradition of the Alvars, poet-saints of South India from the sixth to the ninth centuries (see Shri Vaishnavas). In North India there were new Vaishnava movements: Nimbarka in the fourteenth century with the cult of Radha, Krishna's favourite cowgirl (see Nimavats); Ramananda and the cult of Rama in the same century (see Ramanandis); Kabir in the fifteenth century, whose god is Rama (see Kabirpanthis); Vallabha in the sixteenth century with the worship of the boy Krishna and Radha (see Vallabhas); and Caitanya in the same century with his worship of the grown-up Krishna and Radha (see Gaudiya Vaishnavas). In the Maratha country poet-saints such as Namdev and Tukaram from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries worshipped Vishnu in the form of Vithoba of Pandharpur (see Vitthalas).

See:[4] Wikidās ॐ 08:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My friend, this is totally, absolutely preposterous! I dont know where you got your information...but, it is totally non-scriptural and against all establish Vaishnava/Hindu traditions and principles! And,This was not believed in by any alwar, Ramanujacharya or any one or any thing else. I will contest this. I will go to actual, vedically trained pandits, if need be, to prove this ISKCON/Gaudiya concoction and speculation is wrong. Your hypothesis way out there! This takes the cake for outlandish ISKCON/Gaudiya beliefs!Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Im certainly your friend.. Why do you think that two out of 4 main sampradayas maintain that above all Visnus that are involved in creation, there is an adi-rasa form who is the source of all potencies?

BTW The above is a quote from hiltar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/devot/vaish.html and the guy is not a Gaudia. Hope this helps...

There is plenty of archeological evidence to prove that Vasudeva-Yadava was worshiped way before Visnu. Wikidās ॐ 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • First; the two sampradayams that you mentioned are brake-off groups from the Madhvacharya sampradayam, then the Madhvacharya Sampradayam broke-off from the Sri Sampradayam. The Sri Sampradayam is the original Vaishnava group. We have the original truth. And, every thing that I have said is totally backed by Sastra, Sadhu and tradition. Every one out-side of Vaishnavism in Hinduism will tell you that Vishnu/Narayana is first and that the Sri Sampradayam is the original Vaishnava group. the two Sampradayam or brake-off groups that you mention came around the 12th to 16th centuries with new books and ideas that are totally new and different from the older, original groups.
  • Second; There is No viable evidence to prove that this "Vasudeva-Yadava" worship is before Vishnu/Narayana...none. Where is this stated in Sastra? Did any of the Alwars, Yamunacharya, Ramanujacharya, Desika Vedanta said any thing about this....No, they didnt. It is speculation and a 12th and 16th century Gaudiya and Nimbarka group concoction. I have been a student and trainned in the Vedas for more than a decade and every thing that you mention...nowhere is this stated like this. And, it is perposterous. Every scholarly, practicing Hindu will refute this...unless he or she is a ISKCON/Gaudiya. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zeuspitar, one answer is given to you by Hari-bhakti-vilāsa (1.73), wherein it is stated:

yas tu nārāyaṇaṁ devaṁ brahma-rudrādi-daivataiḥ samatvenaiva vīkṣeta sa pāṣaṇḍī bhaved dhruvam

Its written by a prominent son of Sri Vaisnava Srirangam priest who studed Vyakarana-kavya, Alamkara, and Vedanta, and became an expert in the said sastras. He also acquired knowledge of Bhakti-sastra under his uncle Prabodhananda Sarasvati a prominent scholar of Sri Ranga-ksetra.

The said father of the acarya Veṅkaṭa Bhaṭṭa onces said, “Lord Kṛṣṇa and Lord Nārāyaṇa are one and the same, but the pastimes of Kṛṣṇa are more relishable due to their sportive nature?"

To this he was answered: “Since Kṛṣṇa and Nārāyaṇa are the same personality, Lakṣmī’s association with Kṛṣṇa does not break her vow of chastity. Rather, it was in great fun that the goddess of fortune wanted to associate with Lord Kṛṣṇa.”

Veṅkaṭa Bhaṭṭa continued, “‘According to transcendental realization, there is no difference between the forms of Nārāyaṇa and Kṛṣṇa. Yet in Kṛṣṇa there is a special transcendental attraction due to the conjugal mellow, and consequently He surpasses Nārāyaṇa. This is the conclusion of transcendental mellows.’ “The goddess of fortune considered that her vow of chastity would not be damaged by her relationship with Kṛṣṇa. Rather, by associating with Kṛṣṇa she could enjoy the benefit of the rāsa dance.” Veṅkaṭa Bhaṭṭa further explained, “Mother Lakṣmī, the goddess of fortune, is also an enjoyer of transcendental bliss; therefore if she wanted to enjoy herself with Kṛṣṇa, what fault is there? Why are You joking so about this?” Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, “I know that there is no fault on the part of the goddess of fortune, but still she could not enter into the rāsa dance. We hear this from the revealed scriptures. “‘When Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa was dancing with the gopīs in the rāsa-līlā, the gopīs were embraced around the neck by the Lord’s arms. This transcendental favor was never bestowed upon the goddess of fortune or the other consorts in the spiritual world. Nor was such a thing ever imagined by the most beautiful girls in the heavenly planets, girls whose bodily luster and aroma exactly resemble the beauty and fragrance of lotus flowers. And what to speak of worldly women, who may be very, very beautiful according to material estimation?’ This is a verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.47.60) Hope this reference from Bhagavatam helps. Wikidās ॐ wrote this reply to the nice Sri Vaisnava at 20:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • First the Hari bhakti vilas is only accepted in the Gaudiya group. It is NOT original scripture. It is a "brake-off" group book. but,it is a good book.Again, the Sri Sampradayam, Vishnu/Narayana known to be first, because of Sastra. But, we love Krishna...it is Vishnu playing with the gopis. You put...“Lord Kṛṣṇa and Lord Nārāyaṇa are one and the same, but the pastimes of Kṛṣṇa are more relishable due to their sportive nature?" Yes! That incarnation is one of the greatest and most beloved of Vishnu, but, it does not mean that Krishna is above Vishnu! The fact that Lakshmi came and dance with Krishna...should let you know that....Krishna is Vishnu. "Lord Kṛṣṇa and Lord Nārāyaṇa are one and the same" of course this is true. Study the Narayana upanishad and Narayana Suktam. This is the basis of the Vashishta-advaita principle...but, it is ONLY Narayana,proven by scripture. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Note for Wikidas and Zeuspitar: Please remember that wikipedia talk pages are not a forum to discuss subject of the article. Unless there is a specific proposal for adding/modifying content in the Krishna article, along with supporting references I suggest the above discussion be taken off this talk page, and ideally to an appropriate yahoo (or other) discussion forum. Abecedare (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Abecedare...who are you? Are you an admin? You act like your a web master. Who are you to correct people? You have no right to doing this. If an Admin. said not...I will. This is very relavent to this page. These non-scriptural ideas being put on the articles must be dealt with. This Wikidas putting these outlandish ideas on the articles have to be dealt with. And, he thinks he can back his ideas up with vague ISKCON/Gaudiya references. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above reference, and because Alvars normally fall under the tradition of Sri Sampradaya we can change the above paragraph to:

Within Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the Nimbarka Sampradaya and Vallabha Sampradaya Krishna is worshipped as the source of all avatars (including Vishnu).

Wikidās ॐ 10:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeuspitar, Abecedare is not an admin but he is completely entitled to do what he currently is doing, that is, making sure both you and Wikidas adhere to Wikipedia's policies. (See WP:ENC and WP:NOT is and is not respectively). I encourage you to read Wiki's policy on WP:CIVILTY before accusing Abecedare of various things. You are right however, that Wikidas' notions more than likely can't be supported by WP:RS and are therefore not worthy enought to be on this (or on any Vishnu related) page. Furthermore, I second Abecedare's comment that this discussion doesn't suit the purpose of Wikipedia so it might as well be transferred to another website or forum which would allow this. GizzaDiscuss © 11:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
First, this it not about numbers. the Gaudiya and other groups are minority group, if not cults. their beliefs are not in keeping with the majority of Vaishnavas. Please, I have put on many pages that the ISKCON/Gaudiya beliefs are not in keeping with Scripture.period.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
(BTW - the link is WP:CIVILITY, not WP:CIVILTY). 02:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Some references that may be useful-
by Samuel George Frederick Brandon:
Page 137 Thus the Bhagavatas represent beginning of - Vaisnavism, ...
By time of Bhagavadgita devotion to Krishna, Vasudeva and Vishnu had been synthesised
Brandon, S.G.; Brandon, S.G.F. (1970-1978). Dictionary of Comparative Religion. Macmillan Pub Co. ISBN 0684310090. 
Page 76 of 386 pages: The Bhagavata religion with the worship of Vasudeva Krishna as the ... of Vasudeva Krishna and they are the direct forerunners of Vaisnavism in India.
Ehrenfels, U.R. (1953). "The University Of Gauhati". Dr. B. Kakati Commemoration Volume. 
Page 98: In the Mahabharata, Vasudeva-Krishna is identified with the highest God.
Mishra, Y.K. (1977). Socio-economic and Political History of Eastern India. Distributed by DK Publishers' Distributors. 
Page 109 of 128 pages
Quote with reference to EB-CDROM:Sectarian Vaishnavism had its beginnings in the cult of Vasudeva-Krishna, who may have been a Yadava tribal leader (c. 7th-6th century BC)
Ravasco, G. (2006). Towards a Christian Pastoral Approach to Cambodian Culture. Lulu. com. ISBN 1411693302. 
Page 10: Panini, the fifth-century BC Sanskrit grammarian also refers to the term Vaasudevaka, explained by the second century B.C commentator Patanjali, as referring to "the follower of Vasudeva, God of gods."
Singh, R.R. (2007). Bhakti And Philosophy. Lexington Books. ISBN 0739114247. 
--Wikidās ॐ 11:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas,

  • Panini is generally dated to the 4th, not the 5th century BC.
  • the point you are making is attributed not to Panini but to Patanjali, who dates to the 2nd c. BC
  • stop presenting stuff you read someplace as fact in Wikipedia's voice
  • read WP:SYN
  • try to produce some value some time to make up for the time people already had to waste cleaning up after you.

dab (𒁳) 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please note that Vasudeva is also another name of Vishnu or Narayana, that also your dating for Pāṇini is wrong, as is generally accepted to be 4th-5th century and not 10th century, and that you were referring to a term used by Pāṇini but explained by Patanjali from the 2nd or 3rd century BC. --Shruti14 t c s 22:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks that gives some 'definition' on the above sources. I just presented ONE of a few possible views. I firmly believe that its if you have a few contradicting views, that good articles are born. Not when you just accept some view as a final view. Very useful comments indeed. Wikidās ॐ 08:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment The suggestion that started this discussion does have some merit - at the least, it is a subject worthy of reflection. The traditions known as Vaishnava, Pancaratra and Bhagavata all weave in and out of each other. To define a clear border between them is difficult. For example, noted Hindu scholar Gavin Flood states in his text, Hinduism: An Introduction page on 118 that...
"Early Vaishnava worship focuses on three deities who become fused together, namely Vasudeva-Krishna, Krishna-Gopala and Narayana, who in turn all become identified with Vishnu. Put simply, Vasudeva-Krishna and Krishna-Gopala were worshiped by groups generally refered to as Bhagavatas, while Narayana was worshipped by the Pancaratra sect." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A refert on Krishna page

As you have suggested I wanted to discuss your revert on [5]. Maybe you can spell it out for us please. Not that I insist that it should be there, but its a valid addition of the meaning of the word. In Sanskrit word very often taken apart when meaning is described. Wikidās ॐ 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Abecedare, is your concern about the source Guy Beck, or the way it is included and/or worded into the article? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize this question was asked here too. I just answered it on my talk page and will copy the answer below. Ism, to answer your question: I have no problem with the Beck reference itself; rest is explained below. Abecedare (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell the issue is as follows:
  • The etymology of a word is a matter, not of faith, but of language, which is handled by dictionaries. Standard Sanskrit dictionaries include Apte, Monier Williams etc; some of which are even available online.
  • While it is true that Sanskrit allows extensive conjugation of morphemes to form longer words, this process is governed by strict rules and is not random or arbitrary. In particular the breaking of the word kṛṣṇa into its syllables and assigning them independent power (not meaning!) is a matter of an esoteric tradition (i.e. interpretation) and not linguistics (i.e. translation). Even your citation says as much, right before the part you referenced.
  • That said, it is certainly valid to discuss these traditional interpretations in their proper context. In this case, mentioning the innumerable interpretations of Krishna's various names is simply undue in the Krishna article. Feel free to add the information to the Shuddhadvaita page, which needs to be rewritten anyway so that it is about the sampradaya instead of the founder Vallabha Acharya. Make sure that you cite the source correctly!
Let me know if you have any questions. Abecedare (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. This page is the best place for these discussions. I appreciate your comments and will pause and reflect upon them. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have started a rewrite of the Shuddhadvaita article and have added Beck as a source there. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Abecedare (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Its certainly that the section called The Name was changed to Etimology, that makes it hard to fit in. While I accept that maybe this particular phrase with the quote is better for other articles such as Suddhadvaita. Maybe a shorter statement for interpretation of Pustis can be placed here. Wikidās ॐ 09:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Art, iconography, et.c.

This follows Wikidas's addition of 'colour' to heading of the etymology section. This is correct in that the passage currently discusses his colour, but in lumping together etymology and colour is not exactly logical. Meanwhile, missing from the article is what seems to me to be at least as significant topic as that of the 'performing arts'. This is that of art and iconography showing Krishna; which could include the passages discussing his colour. I've written a first draft, based entirely on memory and without looking up any references.

Krishna is generally shown as dark-skinned child, as a boy, or as a youthful man. In many modern representations he is shown as being blue skinned, like many other deities of Hinduism.

Images of him as a child or young boy are common. In many of these he is shown with his foster parents, or carrying out one of his childhood exploits. (image)

Images of him with the gopis of Vrindabana are among the most common. (image)

As a boy or man he he is typcially shown in a characteristic relaxed pose, playing the flute, often with the villagers of Vrindaban. The association of him with the flute is one of the most common. (reference to music, e.g. raga Kalyani). In these scenes of him at Vrindabana, he is often shown with cattle, emphasising his position as 'the cowherd'.

The scenes on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, notably where he addresses Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita are also well known. In these he is often shown with god-like characteristics of Hindu religious art; such as multiple arms or heads, denoting power, and attributes of Vishnu, such as the chakra. (image)

Representations of him in temples may have him standing in an upright, formal pose, hands resting on hips. Another common representation shows him with his brother Balabhadra and sister Subhadra. (image)

It seems to me also that the names section could do with a minor expansion to discuss some his other better known names, especially those associated with his primary characteristics discussed in the article; 1. the cowherd Govinda, Gopala, 2. Vaasudeva; 3. complexion, Shyama, 4. Jaganatha.

Imc (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the above content (with citations) deserves to be mentioned in the article. One option, instead of adding a separate iconography section, would be to mention these facts in the related place in the "Life" section, or even in the image captions. That will draw a stronger link between the depictions in art/paintings and the episodes from the epics/puranas; and also avoid mentioning the same biographical details twice. What do you think ?
PS: The colour is briefly discussed in the "Etymology" section only because of the translation of Krishna; the section name therefore should not have "colour" in it, just as the Etymology section in the India page is not labeled, "Etymology and rivers"! Abecedare (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that an "Iconography", "Depictions", or similar section is more appropriate for this material. --Shruti14 t c s 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All-attractive

How is this ref [6] for the statement "The Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition interprets Krishna as all-attractive, based on a verse from Mahabharata that is quoted in Chaitanya Charitamrita."--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what the term 'all-attractive' means. No doubt the author / translator had something specific in mind, but it is not a regular English term. Perhaps if there was another translation to flesh this one out, it would add meaning, but at present, I feel that it says little of any use in the encyclopaedia. Imc (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz, I copyedited the section a couple of days back, and the sentence you quote was a shortened version of the two sentences, "The Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition explains another meaning of the name Krishna as being “all-attractive” within the context of the bhakti perspective. This is justified by an interpretation of a verse in the Mahābhārata, as given in the Chaitanya Charitamrita." But I didn't check if the earlier content was actually supported by the reference, which as you say, it isn't. I think unless a reliable secondary citation is forthcoming, at least the second part of the sentence should be removed. Abecedare (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If the text should remain, it needs a better, reliable source. The current source doesn't work. --Shruti14 t c s 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Brahma Samhita

I've just had my removal of Prabhupada's translation of something from this reverted - [7]. It seems to me that the Brahma Samhita is itself a rather esoteric work, and care needs to be taken that it not be treated as a primary or reliable source for all aspects of Hinduism. This applies even more so given the emphasis (still in the article) on particular Vaishnava schools and teachings. Imc (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote in the "Art, iconography etc" section, I would prefer if the "he is often depicted in paintings and murtis with blue or dark skin." is left in the etymology section since that provides immediate context; but it should be referenced using a secondary source (shouldn't be difficult at all) and not a passage from Brahma Samhita. My views on when/how primary religious sources should be used in an article are summarized on RS noticeboard, and I think this article falls short in several places. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The bit about his depictions was taken out of the etymology section, because it was intended to be in the new iconography section, (which was added a few minutes later!) Imc (talk)
I would suggest the following reference to the secondary sources to the Brahma Samhita quote:
1) Sanatana Dharma - Page 50, 1979"His eternally beautiful and heavenly blue-tinged Body glowing with the intensity of thousands of suns."
2) Rabindranath Tagore (editor from 1923); also Surendranath Tagore, Visva-Bharati, Hirendranath Datta (Summer 1974 issue). The Visva-bharati Quarterly. Visva-bharati.  p. 167: "I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord. Who is adept in playing on His flute, with blooming eyes like lotus petals with Head decked with peakock feathers with Figure of beauty with the hue of blue clouds, and His unique Lovliness charming millions of cupids."
3) Knapp, S. (2005). The Heart of Hinduism: The Eastern Path to Freedom, Empowerment and Illumination. iUniverse.  p. 226: "Lord Brahma relates Lord Krishna's form in the many verses of his Brahma-samhita. ... He says that Lord Krishna's body is dark blue like a new cloud."
Let me know which one is your favorite. Wikidās ॐ 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
To clear up one matter, the interpretation of his colour as dark blue, as opposed to black, is not in dispute. The 'cultural identification', for lack of a better term, of black and dark blue is characteristic of Hindu religious art. Dictionary definitions including those that I've quoted before, of the words Krishna and Shyama give both colours. I suggest the addition of a sentence pointing this out, with one of the main dictionaries for a reference. (For myself, I've never seen a cloud that I would describe as blue, but then I was brought up outside India from a young age.) However, it is not necessary to treat such works as the Brahma Samhita as a general reference. Imc (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Imc here. Also note that some dictionaries define "Krishna" as 'dark' and not 'black' (although not all). (As for the clouds, I never understood that perfectly well either, but it wasn't uncommon to use that description in folk literature to refer to the blue-tinged apparent reflection of the sky, at least in the rural area where my grandfather was raised...) --Shruti14 t c s 03:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna's name means "the all-attractive One"

Krishna's name means "the all-attractive One"

Here are a few sources of many that confirm this. If you need more sources, or if none of these sources count as a "good source" let me know, I have millions of sources I could give you, and one of them is bound to be "acceptable". Thank You.

http://www.krishna.com/node/590

http://www.nyu.edu/clubs/krishnabhakti/faq.html

http://www.afn.org/~centennl/prabhupd.htm

http://www.dhirashanta.com/hindu_resources.htm

http://store.mas-india.com/krishnapendant.html

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/10/26/13/en3

http://www.hansadutta.com/KIRTAN/k1.html

http://www.hansadutta.com/KIRTAN/k1.html

http://hkwd.tripod.com/philo.htm

http://www.sda-archives.com/course/B/B26.html

http://www.sda-archives.com/course/W/W14.html

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/billyskank/26

http://www.iskcon.co.uk/newcastle/krsna_page3.html

http://www.krishna.com/node/118

http://www.sspteam.com/html/initiatives/text-active/pse-society/welcome-mat/hints-tips.html

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/bhaktiyoga-5.htm

http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/445/1/ISKCONs-Purpose/

http://www.iskcon.com/education/theology/6.htm

http://preaching.krishna.org/Articles/2004/04/004.html

http://www.utahkrishnas.com/main/page.asp?id=503

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/sb/10/26/13/

http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/8/139/en3

http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/asource-09.htmlMaldek (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


a scholarly dictionary of Sanskrit, perhaps? dab (𒁳) 16:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

the source of this appears to be Prabhupada's commentary of the Chaitanya Charitamrita. The author (Krishnadasa Kaviraja) himself presents a sort of mystical etymology of krishna, claiming that krs is for bhū "existence; earth" and ṇa is for nirvṛti "bliss, pleasure". Why that should be so --- ask Krishnadasa. Now Prabhupada translates bhū as "attractive existence" for some reason. Why he does that -- ask Prabhupada. It may be because the root krs "to plough" (which is of course completely unrelated to krsna "black") besides "to plow", "to drag" can also mean "to draw into one's power". We thus have an etymological speculation of Prabhupada's, connecting krishna with the root krs, but hiding the association behind a "translation" of Krishnadasa's bhū (while Krishnadasa's own association appears to be krs - "to plough" - "earth") .(see Prabhupada's commentary on Chaitanya Charitamrita 9.30) This is all very interesting, but it is mysticism, not linguistics or etymology. dab (𒁳) 16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This interpretation is a valid interpretation in a major Krishna-centered tradition of Hinduism and thus is a valid reference to be retained in the article, its notable and if there are any reliable sources that disagree with this interpretation, one should state it, otherwise its an original research. I personally have not seen any critique of this interpretation of the name coming from a reliable sources and one should not assume that just because dictionary does not give it it is in any way less important. Wikidās ॐ 20:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean. I did not suggest we remove it. I was insisting we document its provenance. The "all attractive" "translation" is Prabhupada's. Its notability is depenent on Prabhupada's. Prabhupada is notable to the topic of "Krishna", but he does not have jurisdiction over it. dab (𒁳) 20:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeap, agree with you, Dbachmann. Nobody has jurisdiction over this topic, there are a few perspectives and all need to be incorporated in a neutral article. This is a notable perspective and is not a WP:FRINGE, I would be careful with that - not only its against the spirit of neutrality, but is also just someone is not religious does not make every religious view a fringe, totally incorrect view and especially if you write about such topic as Krishna. These are NOT amateur and self-published texts. Nor its a creation science. All significant views are to be represented fairly and without bias, with representation in direct proportion to their prominence and summarizing the information gleaned from secondary sources, and in some cases from primary sources that are applicable to the particular subject, but not exclusively. There is a need for atheistic bias as well as theistic bias to be removed and such prominent and notable religious view reflected - that is common sense for us, otherwise one may suspect you are wikilawyering just because you do not like a particular religious tradition, very notable I may add and with a good amount of prominence for this article. Wikidās ॐ 08:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


Again, may other editors have commented many, many, many, times about the meaning of Krishna being "all attractive". And, these iskconites keep on wanting to use it on the articles. It is getting tiring. The "all attractive" meaning is accepted ONLY within the Gaudiyas and iskcon.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk)

[edit] Krishna in the Rigveda

Further to this edit - [8] which states that 'some authors' (R G Bhandarkar, spelt wrong) suggest that the Krishna draksha in the Rigveda refers to the deity. The authority for the quotation is a book from Sunil Bhattacharya. The latter only mentions Bhandarkar in order to disagree with him, with detailed reasons. Without the direct quote I don't feel it is reasonable to add this; Bhandarkar may have been speculating. Imc (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

ahem, yes, you can count on the "Krishnologists" jumping on every mention of anything "dark" or "black" in the Vedas. It's pathetic scholarship, of course, but then we cover "notability, not truth (or scholarly integrity; or sanity)". dab (𒁳) 17:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The quote from Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar discussed in this section of the book is significant. Hardly to be dismissed as a misquoted statement or by labeling it in a any way. There is hardly any note of this being pathetic, except that he is very very prominent and the earliest indigenous modern historian of India. Hardly not a notable reference and needs to be addressed as a valid pout of view. If need be, a more prominent point of view should be presented that disagrees with this as an opinion or a view as per WP:YESPOV. One should not dismiss an opinion, just because its not what you learned from other sources and this is certainly a reliable source. Wikidās ॐ 20:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Bhandarkar is notable in his own right, yes. But he cannot rewrite the Rigveda. If you can provide a precise reference to Bhandarkar's work, we can certainly quote him. dab (𒁳) 20:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sunil Bhattacharya reference states that Bhandarkar provides no reference. However he states Wilson, Colebrooke, W.D.P.Hill all agree that it does not apply to the same Vasudeva Krishna as Bhagavad Gita. I think this notion is notable.

The quote in question is where they disagree about (apparent Govardhan pastime):

“Krsna is said to have arrived with his army to the Amsumati and encamped himself there. Thereupon Indra addressed himself to the Maruts, “I have seen Krishna swiftly moving on the uneven banks of the Amsumati like a cloud touching the water. Heroes, I send ye forth, go and fight the stolen legion (adev yah Vishnuh).”

Im not suggesting mentioning in full, but it can be mentioned, as well as the other names Krishna is mentioned in the Vedas proper. Wikidās ॐ 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no "names of Krishna is mentioned in the Vedas proper", this is WP:FRINGE stuff, get over it. The character of Krishna first appears in the Mahabharata. dab (𒁳) 21:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Im afraid that Encyclopedic Dictionary of Yoga (Georg Feuerstein) 1990 Page 121 states that Govinda ("Cow Finder"), one of the epithets of "Krishna. ... This usage is already known to the ancient seers of the Rig-Veda." That is not a WP:Fringe Govinda/Govind is the 'name of Krishna' that was used in the Veda (not for Krishna but to Indra), just as Gopa (Gopal) was applied to Vishnu. You keep misunderstanding me. You assume that just because Krishna's names were used in the Veda, it means he himself figures in the Veda. No he does not. Just as Radha occurs in such texts as Rg-Veda 8:45:24, Atharva-veda 19:7 - it does not mean that she is the subject of the texts. Its the name being mentioned that matters. Just as in the above passage the name Krishna draksha IS in the Rigveda. Does it apply to Krishna - not according to the majority of the scholars, and that is an important point. Please do not jump to conclusions, usage of name is different to identity of Krishna (that is disputed but only Bhandarkar supports it and Wilson, Colebrooke, Hill all agree that it does not apply to the same Vasudeva Krishna as in Bhagavad Gita. In the above you clearly can not distinguish between name and character. Please nobody is going to rewrite Rig-Veda... Wikidās ॐ 22:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
One example is Rig Veda 10:108:3, where Indra is invited by the Panis to be "the herdsman of their cattle", Govinda. Wikidās ॐ 22:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
so Krishna is Indra now? What the hell Wikidas? Krishna has hundreds of epithets, all or most of them found in the Rigveda. So what? About half of them are shared by both Vishnu and Shiva. In this spirit, we might as well merge all articles in Category:Hindu deities into a single one. A great idea for mystic meditation, perhaps, but hardly for encyclopedic coverage. I get it, Krishna is God, ok? Be happy with this truth, but don't try to build an encyclopedia on it. dab (𒁳) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you said 'no "names of Krishna are mentioned in the Vedas proper"' - this is incorrect, at least to me. We are not discussing him being god or Vedic god. Names of Krishna such as 'Govinda' and 'Gopal' figure in the Veda. It is the encyclopedic approach - names are different from persons. If I was bringing up religious perspective, I would be siting religious sources. If the name Dbachmann was mentioned in the Rig Veda - it would be notable in the article about you. RV VIII 85.13-15 mentions the name, but not everyone agrees that this name is about Krishna himself. I think we understand what we are talking about. Please understand, Im not trying to pick the fight with you, I appreciate you edits, I just want to be clear that we are talking about the same thing ie names as in things you read before you interpret them, it appears you jump to conclusions, but it could be attributed to some of my previous edits. Wikidās ॐ 22:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
if you like. Christ has been given epithets of "shepherd", "Sun" etc., and, lo and behold, words for "shepherd" and "sun" are found in Homer, and in the Vedas. Hence, the Vedas and Homer contain "names of Christ". Nonsense? Sure. These are words that later came to be used as a deity's epithets. But I appreciate that we are not actually in a dispute here, the article is fine as it stands. dab (𒁳) 09:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Every one has told wikidas about the "Krishna" question in the Rig Veda many, many, many times. It is tiring already. He keeps harping about this "Krishna qouted in the Rig Veda" erroneous notion. We have told him time and again about the word "Krishna" means black in the Vedas. He would get it through his head. This has to be a dispute about this non-sense notion and all of wikidas's perposterious cult notions and fantasies. We have told him over 5 times already...we got to do some thing...he has marred alot of the Hindu articles with his non-sense.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And, again, I am repeating myself...this guy does not know what he is saying! He doesnt know if he is coming or going! He uses erroneous references that people have told him over 10 times that they are not reliable! People are PRAISING him for his edits! Look on his discussion page. And, he is combative about his fantasy, delusional cult ideas. Every thing he does is with an iskcon group flavor and slant. It will take a long time to change his edits. And, at least 7 editors can say what I am saying is true.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikidās is clearly editing in good faith, but as clearly he has no idea what he is doing. He is not pulling his own weight, so to speak, creating an overhead of other editors needing to babysit him. This isn't welcome behaviour, but sort of a necessary evil on Wikipedia. This sort of behaviour tends to either improve over time as the editor learns how the system works, or deteriorate, resulting in a community ban. We'll just have to keep watching and see which way the balance will tilt. dab (𒁳) 10:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks dab, I think Im learning, and while I welcome positive feedback, I certainly learn based on the negative feedback too. I personally take Zeupitars comments above as a typical example of unicivility. I suspect that he thinks Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar is a Hare Krishna monk... Wikidās-ॐ 12:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of Krishna Vasudeva article

The proposal is being discussed at WT:KRISHNA. Please submit your views. Wikidās-ॐ 20:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done

[edit] Little work left for GA

It has been very quiet here so the article is a good state to get to the GA nomination. There are just a few tags and minor formating of the references that we can do; and following that I suggest nomination for GA, it will stabilize the article even further and compliment the work done. Discussion on it also started at the project page. Wikidās-ॐ 15:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)