Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WT:HINDU/V
WT:VAISHNAVA

Contents

[edit] Vaishnavism wikiproject editors and admins

  • Any thoughts on the need for admins in Wikiprojects Hinduism and Vaishnavism would be appreciated. There is a request for admin by User:Zeuspitar at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/zeuspitar. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, we've got one admin involved in the project, although I acknowledge that other concerns might make me spend most of my time elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vaishnavism's relation to Vedic religion

is there somewhere online where there is a good, detailed, outsider's explanation of the beliefs and principles of the Hare Krishna faith? I am trying to see if they believe in the Christian God, and anything else. What I don't want is a bunch of words that take me ten minutes to pronounce. I just want to know what they stand for, and do not stand for. thanks P.R.

Try looking at the Hare Krishna article at International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness

thank you, i'll check it out P.R.

THe Christian God? Dude... they believe in Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As Hindus, they believe everyone prays to the same God, though they feel that God is ultimately Krishna. --LordSuryaofShropshire 03:10, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Technically, the Hare Krishnas are not Hindu--they're followers of the Vaisnava philosophy. The devotees are only interested in satisfying Krishna's (God's) senses. They will only accept food which has first been offered to the Lord. Similarly they are always chanting the Hare Krishna maha-mantra. Ultimately, they are following the teachings of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who started the Hare Krishna movement. -D.

Vaishnavism is a VEDIC philosophy and hinduism is psudo name for vedic religion. Vedic religion is very old and is brought forward by aryans.:)

First, Vaishnava means devotee of VISHNU...not a vibhava/avatara form. ONLY ISKON/Gaudiya people chant the Krishna maha-mantra. The Original Vaishnavas chant the ashta-mantra or eight syllable mantra to Narayana, the dvaya mantra or two sentence mantra for surrendering to Narayana, the charam mantra and the Vishnu sahastranama stotram as commanded by the acharyas like Ramanujacharya and those before him. Only the ISKON/Gaudiyas follow Caitanya maha-prabhu, The Original Vaishnavas follow Ramanujacharya, Vedanta desika and the Alwars. All of the different segments of the Hindu religion;Vaishnavas, Shavites, the Ganesha devotees....ALL throughly follow the original Vedas, Upanishads, Laws of Manu,etc.,etc. If they are following the Vedic shastras and the principles...then, they are VEDIC! While ISKON/Gaudiyas doesnt follow the Original four Vedas, Upanishads, Laws of Manu and etc....the Vedic scriptures! They only follow the Isha-Upanishads, Itihasas scriptures, and their own Sampradayam books like the Caitanya caramrita. So, who's Vedic? The term Hindu, is a term use for all of the different religions and denominations in India that are suppose to follow the Vedic shastra (Holy books) and principles...then, they are all Vedic! Vaishnavas are only a part of the greater spectrum of Hinduism. Again...Vaishnava means...Devotee of Vishnu! Maybe Krishnava would be a better name for ISKON/Gaudiyas.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Comment I believe that Zeuspitar has asked some good questions above concerning: "who is Vedic?," "who is "Vaishnava?," and "how Vedic is Vaishnavism?" Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


The best pages I can kind on the subject are a few pages in the Encyclopedia Britannica online, and our own articles on the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, its founder A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, and the group he came from, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and its founder Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. I think that, as the ISKCON is described in the west as being a variant form of Bhakti yoga, in the eyes of most westerners, and by Wikipedia:Naming conventions, it can fairly be called "Hindu" by those not familiar with it, that word being the one used in the west to lump together all such faiths, accurately or not. Many Westerners are less familiar with the Vedas, or the word "Vedic", so "Hindu" is probably the word they know best. I do know that several members of the movement do not particularly like being called "Hindus", preferring a more specific, detailed term. The same can be said for several groups started in the Reformation who object to being called "Protestant". But we try to describe things in the most easily accessible way possible, and that is the term westerners are most familiar with.
Regarding whether they believe in the Christian god, they believe that all true descriptions of God are in fact descriptions of Krishna or one of his avatars. Several groups do describe Jehovah as an avatar of one of Krishna's forms and Jesus as his son, and, according to Religious perspectives on Jesus#Hinduism, the members of ISKCON are among them. I hope that makes a little sense. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


"how Vedic is Vaishnavism?" See, with Sri Vaishnavas or Ramanujacharya Sampradayam (Sri Sampradayam is the original-foundation group for Vaishnavism) we follow ALL of the Shastra; the four Vedas, the Upanishads, the Laws of Manu and etc...first. Then, the itihasas like the Ramayana, the Maha-Bharata/Bhagavad-gita and ALL the Sattvic Puranas,...not just one purana. We also have other books that stem from shastra like the Sri Bhasya which is a commentary on the Vedanta sutras and the Ratna stotra. The books help lay-people to understand certain principles that are found the vedas. Original Vaishnavism is based totally on ALL of the Vedic Shastra or scriptures. This was the standard for Vaishnavas from time in memorial to the time of Ramanujacharya. After Ramanujacharyas passing, there were, between the 12th to 16th centuries, a number of people braking off and forming their own groups or sampradayams and proclaiming the supreiority of their particular ista-deva or belief. To be "Vedic" and follow "Vedic principles" means to strictly follow All of the Four Vedas, the Upanishads, Laws of Manu and standards and principles within them. The standard for Vaishnavas originally was uphold the dharma or duties for brahmanas specified in the Vedas and cultivating our love for Narayana through mediation on Vishnu,chanting of prayers and studying the scriptures. For ISKON/Gaudiyas; they only their particular translation of the Isha-Upanishad, Itihasas texts and their own group books like the caitanya caratamrita and etc. They have cast away with the duties and performances that required for Vaishnava brahmanas or priest for singing, dancing and playing on drums for God, but, they say that they are above being brahmanas and the same time state that they are special brahmanas that only sing, dance and play on drums for God. It is perposterous to condemn other groups for not being "Vedic philosophy"...and at the same time, not follow the original Vedic scriptures and Vedic principles themselves. The Shavites follow strictly to the vedas...are they not "Vedic". To them, Shiva is the one God, and feel that they can prove it through scripture. Are they less "Vedic".Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


To John Carter; "all true descriptions of God are in fact descriptions of Krishna or one of his avatars"...first, this is ONLY a ISKON/Gaudiya belief that all avataras come from Krishna. This is not supported by any of the original four Vedas, the main-original Upanishads, laws of Manu,other original scriptures or the original acharyas of Vaishnavism before the advent of the brake-off groups in 12th to 16th centuries. In fact, they state that Narayana/Vishnu is the first. The sentiment that you express comes from ISKON sources and is particular to that group.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


John Carter said..."I think that, as the ISKCON is described in the west as being a variant form of Bhakti yoga"...For Vaishnavas, during the time of Ramanujacharya and before Him. Bhakti Yoga was performing all of Ashtanga yoga...but, LOVENLY meditate on Vishnu/Narayana. To this day,Sri Vaishnavas/Sri Sampradayam, because we follow the Vedas, Upanishads and the original acharyas, we Lovenly meditate on Vishnu within you is a main part of sadhana or daily spiritual practices. The original Vaishnava "Bhakti Yoga" is Lovenly meditating on Vishnu within your heart and Soul...period.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
What I thought I had said was that ISKCON, which holds (somewhat uniquely) all incarnations of God come ultimately from Krishna, thus holds that all incarnations of any of the gods which come from him, which includes Vishnu and several others, are thus also incarnations, ultimately, of Krishna. And by using the capital "G" I was trying to indicate that I was referring specifically only to those instances when "God" is used as an almost proper name, and not referring to individual "gods" like Brahma, and, conceivably, Apollo, Horus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, etc., none of whom are given the same status as Jehovah, Vishnu/Krishna (or Krishna/Vishnu, whichever), Allah, occasionally Shiva, and the like. And, in response to Zeuspitar, it is important for us all to recognize that almost all the content, particularly in the English language wikipedia, regarding this subject will be read by individuals who have little if any familiarity with any of the religions of India. We are always supposed to write the articles for individuals who are not particularly already familiar with the subject. And, while I acknowledge that the original Vaishnavism may be different, as per wikipedia guidelines regarding naming and writing articles, we are supposed to use the most readily understood and used terms. Gaudiya Vaishnavism not only incorporates the word "Vaishnavism" in its name, but also bears, barring the differentiation on the exact identity of the ultimate god, all the other characteristics as well. I might point out to you that other articles, including Roman Catholic Church, which is formally and officially named "Catholic Church", face the same problem of having their name "misused" by others and wikipedia's content changed on that basis. However, we should not assert any POV regarding the usage of a word, in this case "Vaishnavism", including that of the originators of a word, over that of any reliably verifiable other in our content. As per WP:NAME, Gaudiya Vaishnavism is what that entity is known as, so it can and should be referred to with that word. The article Vaishnavism can and probably should go into some detail as to why some individuals who use the word believe it is used incorrectly in this instance, like is the case with Messianic Judaism, but that doesn't mean that the word should not be used at all. If, however, you believe that the scope of this group should not include Gaudiya Vaishnavism, you are free to propose that, much like Messianic Judaism's content is not necessarily covered by WikiProject Judaism. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that "Vaishnavism" is an often-misused term. I think that this workgroup can cover Gaudiya Vaishnavism as a separate sect of Vaishnavism (as they do actually worship Lord Vishnu, as Krishna) but not necessarily ISKCON. There are many Gaudiya Vaishnavas who don't consider themselves part of ISKCON or share some of ISKCON's other views. Also, while many Gaudiya Vaishnavas are known as Hindus, ISKCON has been compared to a cult within Hinduism, though I think labeling ISKCON as a cult is a little extreme, given the word "cult"'s negative connotations. (Of course, the word "cult" as used in academic circles is not necessarily negative.) --Shruti14 t c s 15:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Please expand a little. What do you mean by stating, "this workgroup can cover Gaudiya Vaishnavism as a separate sect of Vaishnavism (as they do actually worship Lord Vishnu, as Krishna) but not necessarily ISKCON.?"
Not all Gaudiya Vaishnavas are part of ISKCON, though I suspect that the majority of them are. --Shruti14 t c s 05:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Concerning The Four Vaishnava sampradayas listed on the Vaishnavism article, are you saying Gaudiya Vaishnavism should be seperate from all four? From what I have read, ISKCON and other Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe that they are part of the, "Brahma-Madhava-Gaudiya sampradaya." See, The Sampradaya of Sri Caitanya, (a dialogue btw Ravindra Svarupa Dasa and Satyaraja Dasa). Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
With the Gaudiyas believing that they are a part of Brahma-madhava-gaudiya sampra....the Gaudiyas main acharya; Caitanya maha-prabhu formulated the idea of the "achinta beda-beda tattva". Some how...it is different from the Dwaita sadanta of Madhavacharya. The Gaudiya formed their own Sampradayam; which stressed the "achinta" idea, playing on drums and singing their Maha-mantra and casting aside all Vedic procedures and rules of engaugement as perscribed in the Laws of Manu. From what I understand, the Madhava Sampradayam, even though the dwaita is only partially backed by scripture...they follow the Vedic scriptures to the tee in other areas.Where as the Gaudiyas they follow....their own things. They cast aside almost all pre-itihasas scriptures; with the exception of the isha-upanishad. And, follow their own books...mostly written during and after the schism years after Ramanujacharya, between the 12th and 16th centuries. All which, remarkably, prove the notion that Sri Krishna is the Para-form of all Vishnu avataras. All scriptures at the time of and before Ramanujacharya and Madhavacharya; stated...plainly, that Vishnu is the Para-form. Then,...all of a sudden, in the 13th to 15 hundreds Krishna avatara is the supreme God of Vaishnavas, with books that miraculously appear to prove this point. Plainly, Madhavacharya Believed in Vishnu and following the original Vedas. While the Gaudiyas...are the opposite, to say nicely. Also, the Gaudiyas are a "brake-off" group of the Madhavacharya/Brahma Sampradayam. And, the Madhavacharya/Brahma Sampradayam "broke-off" from the Ramanujacharya/Sri Sampradayam....brake-off groups..from brake-off groups..from brake off group thinking that they know better than the previous group before. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
While the Gaudiya Vaishnavas like to believe that they are a part of the "Brahma-madhava-gaudiya sampradaya", many outside of the sect do not believe the same thing. Many consider them to be a break-off subdivision of Vaishnavism, although many of the followers of the sect disagree. Their "own books" are really the original books with their own commentaries and interpretations based on their beliefs, which are often not completely accepted by other subdivisions or sects of Vaishnavism. To be fair, it is safe to say that it is disputed whether they are a part of the "Brahma-madhava-gaudiya sampradaya" or not. --Shruti14 t c s 05:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
To clarify: essentially, by declaring themselves part of the "Brahma-madhava-gaudiya sampradaya" Gaudiya Vaishnavas claim that their beliefs and opinions are superior and more correct than the beliefs of any other Vaishnava, and therefore, any Hindu, tradition, something that the rest of the Hindu community generally disagrees with. The Madhavas believe that their beliefs are upheld in the scriptures, but some Hindus disagree with their interpretations of the scriptures. However, the majority (though not all) of Madhava beliefs are shared with mainstream Vaishnavism, just as the majority of Sri Vaishnava beliefs are, and there aren't too many differences, though these differences are distinct and notable. Gaudiya Vaishnavism, however, is not mainstream Vaishnavism as many of their beliefs are not upheld by other Vaishnavas. For this reason, it is distinctly different. They termed the "Brahma-madhava-gaudiya sampradaya" to state that their beliefs are not too different, and are actually superior to, the beliefs of Madhavas, which they see as superior to other beliefs. In truth, Gaudiya Vaishnavism is different enough that many outside the sect see them as a separate division of Hinduism altogether, although this view is highly disputed. --Shruti14 t c s 13:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree totally with what you have written. Again, we need more scripturally following, traditionally practicing, non-ISKON/Gaudiya Hindus who have not been tainted by ISKON propaganda or indoctrinization,to clarify any "brake-off" group misconceptions, curb any subtle "preaching" tactics, curb any subtle "brake-off" group superiority slants or leanings in the articles.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course, all articles must be NPOV, maintaining a neutral point of view. --Shruti14 t c s 19:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunally almost every single editor who is contributing to the above follows a particular branch of Hinduism, and thus represent his branch and not the Hinduism as a whole (should be really refered as Hinduisms[1]). Thus to maintain NPOV a reference to academic studies should be ALWAYS cited. In fact some of the above can not even spell correctly names of the society (and spell ISKON insted of ISKCON). That shows a lack of knowledge, thus to comly with NPOV and general req for the verifiable info of WP one really must restrain oneslef and quote reliable and verifiable sources. ONLY then a NPOV will really be established. Wikidās 12:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
While I like the suggestions, we must be careful about breaking into too many work groups, or else we may need one for almost every article! That would be quite counter-productive! I think, for now at least, that all of these should be covered under the current Vaishnavism work group, as they are all considered sects of Vaishnavism by most Hindus, as regardless of how major the many disagreements between them may be, they still fit the central definition of Vaishnavism: belief in Lord Vishnu (or one of His forms) as a Supreme God. --Shruti14 t c s 01:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, even with the multiple Vaishnava work groups, it will be difficult to maintain NPOV. Each group may well support their interpretations of the scriptures as authoritative, and in fact, this may make it harder to maintain NPOV, with each work group focused on editing articles to support the philosophy of the workgroup. --Shruti14 t c s 01:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:VishnuAvatars

I and another editor have contradictory views about inclusion of Balarama in the template. Balarama is considered as one of the Dasavatar in southern-india, and Buddha is dropped. While in north-india buddha is included and Balarama excluded. My suggestion include BOTH as per WP:NEUTRAL balancing both views. The suggestion is drop "Balarama" as per "majority opinion". See discussion on my talk. References for Balarama being included in the 10 avatars:

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Redtigerxyz's suggestion that both Balarama and Buddha be included per WP:NEUTRAL. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree also Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
KRSNa and BalarAma should be included under one section of daSAvatAra as they form a pair, same as RAma-LakSmaNa. At least it should be presented as an option.Wikidas (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikidas has made a good proposal, I agree with it. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I oppose the pairing of Krishna/Balarama as the template is giving the sense Krishna Or(/) Balarama is considered an avatar, which is not generally the case. Also, Balarama has an equal status as a DAsaavatar with Krishna, which included. When not included, he plays a subordinate role as Shesha's avatar. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I also oppose the pairing for the same reasons as Redtigerxyz. --Shruti14 t c s 15:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
One has to accept that 11 dasavataras is not acceptable. Please provide an alterantive proposal to pairing Krsna with his Brother. —--Wikidas (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Include 11 Avatars and Note explaining why 11 avatars are included, that can be hidden.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
And that is serious I guess.. (it okay for a page BUT not okay for a template). Its as as easy to explain that KRSNa and BalarAma are infact different personalities and keep the number at 10 as per title of the template. Wikidās14:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Redtigerxyz's proposal, since although it may seem admittedly strange to put a note like that on a template and not a page, it is more correct. We didn't put Lakshmana and Rama on the same template because Lakshmana is not considered a full avatar, and so similarly, as not everyone believes that Balarama is not a full avatar, and as Krishna and Balarama are not the same, they should be kept separate with a note explaining why there are 11 avatars listed when, in fact, "Dasha Avatar" (the name given to Vishnu's avatars) means "10 avatars". By the way, I advise everyone to not indent their posts too much, as the columns for writing what you want to say are getting too small! --Shruti14 t c s 23:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I still think that a list of 11 should instead of the 2 lists, repeating names and creating confusion. Also in some lists, Krishna is dropped (see ref above), what about those lists??? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested merge for Lalita with Tripura Sundari article

  • It has been suggested that the Lalita page be merged with the Tripura Sundari page. My thoughts are that the two pages describe and represent two different subjects. Lalita is about a gopi and an important personality concerning Krishna centered Vaishnavism. Also, the Tripura Sundari article is about a tantric goddess. These, in my opinion, are two different personalities requiring two different articles. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Lalita be transformed into a disambig. The current be split into 2: Lalita (gopi) and the other part be merged into this article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that since the two are different personalities the article to be split and Lalita to refer to gopi Lalita. Link for Goddess Lalita should be clearly placed for redirection.Wikidas (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have started working on the Lalita (gopi) article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirected Lalita to Tripura Sundari as a web-search [2] of Lalita, gives more results about Lalita the tantric goddess, rather than the gopi.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Why will we consider google to be a proof? I guess if Indira Gandhi name was Lalita instead of Indira, you will get more of her. Google does not provide a proof.Wikidās 14:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merger and Support disambiguation and redirection - why combine both articles when they are different? --Shruti14 t c s
Oppose merger and Support disambiguation and redirection, per Shruti14. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Potential advertisements posing as articles

Is there any way to stop it? Besides Afd? Wikidāst- c- s-21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a good question. I wont nominate anything until there is some consensus. Articles like Henry Doktorski are basically advertisements BUT they may contain some notability. Per Doktorski, he has recorded one album on independent label. This might be enoough for notability (although I disagree), BUT this should not make room for eBay advertisements and personal websites as the Henry Doktorski article does. Using an article to push eBay merchandise does not make for a good article. Unfortunately, I think there is a lot more of these types of advertisement out there. Some pages are complete advertisements and some are just mostly advertisement. Anyhow, thanks for responding Wikidas, I am sure there will be more to talk about. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ism Schism, I agree with you on this subject. If there is any thing I can do to help...please let me know.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree as well, and so if the articles' subjects are notable enough, they should be kept, and if not, deleted. By the way, this is slightly off-topic, but is there a tag for marking articles that appear to be extensions of personal websites or ads? --Shruti14 t c s 00:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna

The article states that traditionally Krishna is worshiped as an avatar of Vishnu (Vishnu is considered the Supreme God by the Vaishnava schools).

Is there are difference in the procedures of worship of avatar vs. worship of avatari? If not its just a consideration of theory and practice of worship will not change if one is avatara or the source of the avataras.Wikidās 02:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Vishnu himself is a part of the Holy Trinity, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva (Mahesh), created by the Supreme God - the Formless Source, to run the world, so lets' just say, they all come from the same Source, and there would be no differentiation in theory as well as practise.

(Ekabhishek (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

By "avatari" did you mean 'source of the avatars'? If you did, then it depends on the sect of Hinduism/Vaishnavism. Many state that knowing the difference between Vishnu and His avatars is important, and that it is Vishnu who will ultimately grant a worthy person Moksha. Others state that as most or all avatars are 'full' avatars (meaning that they are completely the same as Vishnu, and do not only possess only a part of Vishnu's qualities and attributes), it does not matter. Nearly all, however, believe that the worship of the avatar is the same as the worship of Vishnu. --Shruti14 t c s 00:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe that Krishna is the source of avatars, not Vishnu. See the article for their viewpoints on the subject. --Shruti14 t c s 00:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree and back you 100%. We need more non-ISKCON/Gaudiyas Hindu/Vaishnavas to be saying these things on Wikipedia.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It does seem that many Wikipedia articles do have a slight ISKCON inclination... but hopefully that will be taken care of so that those articles will have a more complete Vaishnava and/or Hindu view. Many people in the Western world, especially in the US have a misconception that ISKCON is the representative of Hinduism, which isn't true. --Shruti14 t c s 03:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think is NPOV in this matter - there are reliable sources for it. However is there a difference to the worship procedures? Gaudia vaisnavas maintain both - that Krsna is the origin of Karanadakasay Vishnu and also an Avatara of Vishnu. Does a method of worship changes if you do not accept the first? Wikidās 08:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree NPOV is important, and of course reliable sources should be used to back up everything in the articles. As for your question, it really depends, as there is much variation in practice and worship in Hinduism, but generally speaking, yes, it does make a difference if you do not believe that Krishna is the origin of Vishnu. As for methods of worship, it really depends on the beliefs of the worshiper. --Shruti14 t c s 13:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A question about this article that is slightly off topic: I understand that the person who put the information stating that Krishna "departed" instead of "died" is a suspected sockpuppet of of another user, and so those edits were reverted with that in mind. However, the fact certainly remains that Hindus believe that as a "full" avatar of Vishnu, Krishna did NOT die, but rather departed from this earth to return to Vaikunta. I have changed the article to reflect this viewpoint, and also corrected minor grammar and style edits. Was this the right thing to do? I'm sure that this is not the first time that edits like this were reverted, and I was wondering why the edits continue to be corrected and then reverted. (The last revert is an exception, as the reverts were made on the basis that the editor is a suspected sockpuppet, and so I suspect all of that editor's recent edits were reverted.) --Shruti14 t c s 13:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea "that Krsna is the origin of Karanadakasay Vishnu"...it is ONLY beleived in the ISKCON/Gaudiya group. It is definitely not believed in other vaishnava sampradayams. And, most importantly... is NOT backed in the pre-itihasas texts; four Vedas, main Upanishads, Laws of Manu and etc. and etc. It is only talked about in books that came out much, much later; like say...13th and 16th centuries. During this time period, all of a sudden...Krishna avatara is now the supreme God of Vaishnavas and miraclously, Poof! there are books;new upanishads, new puranas,new tantras and etc., that prove it and written with a whole different set of principles geared towards Krishna avatara Being ABOVE Vishnu/Narayana. This is TOTALLY not backed by the original scriptures, the original acharyas and traditions. It is incredible and mind-blowing how the ISKON/Gaudiya sadhanta is different from and drifted away from the previous original Sampradayams! And, the idea that ISKON/Gaudiya beleive in that "Krishna is an avatara of Vishnu"...they state in their books, lectures, web-sites, their personal gurus and veda-base, that Krishna is Above Vishnu, which again, is not supported in the original scriptures, original vaishnava acharyas and traditions.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it could be noted in the article how each sampradaya understands Krishna, so specific beliefs that belong to specific religious communities can be identified. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think any suggestion on understanding of Krsna being a source or avatara or (both) should be discussed in terms of each tradition. However the worship that He gets will not change from one tradition to another.Wikidās 12:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shruti- there is a big big ISKCON bias on Wikipedia. Why is this? I guess it is because of how successful Prabhupad was at spreading his beliefs. Anyways, it is my opinion that the article is pretty good as it is: most commonly he is seen as an avatar of Vishnu, Gaudiya tradition sees him as the source of Vishnu. David G Brault (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Note Its not only Gaudia... but some upanisadas and Bhagavata traditions sees him as the source of Maha Vishnu AND avatara of Vishnu as well and in the same time. Moreover that refers to one particular form of Krsna, Rasashekhara, not to the form of Krsna as Parthasaratha (for example). So both are right He 'is full avatara' and (confidential knowledge - guhyatam) is the source of all purusa-avataras starting from Karanadakasayi Visnu. Wikidās ॐ 20:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • NoteThis is Only Gaudiya...the upanishads that mention Krishna as the source are written later around during the 15th century to give validity to the Gaudiyas. The idea of Krishna being the source is only Gaudiya. And, is not a Vedically valid idea.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The vast majority of Vaishnavas see Vishnu as the source of avatars like Krishna, although significant minority groups (such as Gaudiya and Bhagavata) believe the opposite. Also, many non-Vaishnavas (for example, adherents of Shaivism) also believe that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, though they may not believe that Vishnu is the ultimate source of everything, but rather another deity (for example, Shiva in the Shaivism example). In any case, this is off-topic - the point is that Wikipedia should not have any bias, ISKCON or not, to maintain WP:NPOV. --Shruti14 t c s 00:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Shruti14 wrote: The vast majority of Vaishnavas see Vishnu as the source of avatars like Krishna, although significant minority groups (such as Gaudiya and Bhagavata) believe the opposite. - Gaudias/Bhagavatas believe that Krsna is an incarnation and comes down as an incarnation of Vishnu, but is also the origin of the all purusa avataras of Vishnu.
tāv imau vai bhagavato harer aṁśāv ihāgatau
bhāra-vyayāya ca bhuvaḥ kṛṣṇau yadu-kurūdvahau
Bhag.Purana 4.1.59
That Nara-Nārāyaṇa Ṛṣi, who is a partial expansion of Kṛṣṇa, has now appeared in the dynasties of Yadu and Kuru, in the forms of Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna respectively, to mitigate the burden of the world.
How does that affect the WAY one worships Krishna?
Please let me finish - I know the difference between traditions, I do not know how that difference actually translated into different worship type.
Wikidās ॐ 22:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
In MODERN times, the differences in worship are (relatively) few, and the majority of differences are mostly philosophical. --Shruti14 t c s 22:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thelemic/Crowley section on the Krishna article

I wanted to ask who put the Alester Crowley section on the Krishna article? This section is just incoherent, philosophical bumbo-jumbo babble!!! I lived in austin texas and live in L.A. (these two places had the largest population of Crowley followers in america)..I have had almost 15 years of experience with these Thelemites! First off, Yes, they might mention Krisna...but, their practices, their philosophy are absolutely Adharmic and Avedic!! They have taken a mixture of Black tantra, Crowleys speculations on various spiritual traditions and made some kind of tama guna, asuric, speculative, concocted, IMMORAL form of so-called "Spiritual" practices that is definetly against the Vedic religion. He was a drug user and questionable sexual practices that involved so-called sexual "magical" ceremonies. Every one who is a practioner of the Vedas should be appalled by the disgusting practises and immorality of these "Thelemites". Their beliefs are absolutely against the Vedas. Some followers, I know for a fact, perform magic rites with sexual body fluids and try to commune with spirits and etc...not too Vedic! And, there is a qoute in our beautiful Sri Krishna article from their so-called "Aeon of horus" savior - Crowley?! Can we please take this out immediately. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Aleister Crowley's Thelema (As well as his personal) views are far away from Hindu views in almost every aspect. He did canonize Krishna, however. I am currently debating whether this information (about the canonization) is notable enough for the article, and I'm not sure that it should stay. The Thelema followers do not totally recognize Krishna, only Crowley did. There are other reasons for the information not needing placement in the article about Krishna, which I will not go into detail here. Any thoughts or opinions on this? --Shruti14 t c s 03:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Every one SHOULD study the articles on Aleister Crowley and Thelema!!! Especially on the daily practices of "Thelemites"!!! They engauge in "sex magic" that involves masterbation and hetero and homosexual techniques!!! I will be taking out the Thelemic/Crowley section to the Krishna article within the next two days...on saturday 22nd 2008. Who in the world put the Crowley section on the Krishna article? I have a feeling that some one from a certain "group" put that information into the article! We need more non-ISKON/Gaudiya Hindus involved with editing on the articles. We need scripturally following,religiously traditional Hindu people who have not be tainted by any ISKON/Gaudiya influences or propaganda to help with information on Wikipedia. They have had a free hand for too long.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course NPOV is important, and so the articles should reflect a complete but neutral POV for all Vaishnavas, and not just ISKCON, but I'm not sure it was ISKCON that put it there, but a follower of Thelema. In any case, I have done multiple Google searches and have yet to find enough notable and reliable sources to determine that the information is notable, and if it is indeed not notable, it should be removed. --Shruti14 t c s 13:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This subject is a bit off topic for the article. A mention of this on the Thelema and Crowley pages might be a better place for this subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There is not a section, or even a brief discussion, on the Thelma page concerning Krishna. There is no need to include Thelma information on the Krishna page that is of no significant important for Thelma itself. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no section or mention of Krishna on Jainism, Buddhism or Ahmadi/Ahmadiyya Muslim Community pages either, but that fact is irrelevant since we should base our content on external reliable sources and not other wikipedia articles. By the way, the section on Krishna in Jainism is completely unreferenced and some of it reads like speculation; can someone add references and help improve the article ? Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The scripture cited only makes a reference to Krishna. Aside from a few sentences, there is very little information in the source provided for this reference. I think that without secondary sources this is boardering on OR. Are there any secondary sources that you have come across to add weight to its importance? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point! I'll search for secondary sources. Can we do the same for the other sections yoo, which have the same problem ? Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Still, regardless of what ever overly intellectual, Avedic reason....the Thelemic section on the Krishna section NEEDS TO GO. Yes, it is very nice to quote other spiritual branches ideas of Sri Krishna...but, to put Crowley's Thelema "Stuff", it is going a little bit too far. I dont know what people in other parts of the world know about or have experience with Crowley "devotees"...but, their dark, very dark. You can just study the history of Crowley and you'll see that it is very tama guna and asuric. And, it against Sastra/Scripture. What Crowley practiced and his followers STILL practice is some strange, concocted, water-down, western form of black and red (tama-guna and raja guna) tantra. And, has NO PLACE on the Krishna article. It is nice think liberally and have an open mind to other Spiritual paths....this is the exception.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Please Abecedare, in all due respect, with no grudges, no offenciveness what-so-ever,but, Let me ask you? Why are you soo insistant and adamant about keeping the Thelema section? I hope that your not a cryptic Thelemite trying to be a watered-down hindu. Even if you look for and find second refences, the fact still remains that that group...is immoral and dark. And, not in keeping with good taste and especially the Ancient principles of the Vedic religion. Truely devote Hindus, regardly of what denomination, would find that any thing with this group associated with KRISHNA is offensive to the Sanatana Dharma. An example, if Jews found some thing like this on any article representing the Jewish faith, they would insist that it be removed immediately....especially if the ADL comes in. Same thing with Muslims. So why is it different with Hindus? Are we not allowed keep up a desent image to the public? Are we not allowed to defend our Religion against "groups" like this being associated with us? They are not a bona fida religion. It is shocking that you scoured to find this quote. Even the name..."saints of ecclesia Gnostica catholica" should offend traditional Catholics. This name and thelemite in genereal are an affront to Religion. Hindus have a right to have a CLEAN image and Name in society. If this Thelemite section is not taken out, I will be contacting Wikipedia. NamaskarGovinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
After searching for acceptable, accurate, and reliable sources on the subject, I am yet to find enough of them (or really any) to justify keeping the Thelema/Crowley section of the article. I only found one article even worth consideration for being considered a source - an article from a Thelema-themed wiki called Thelemapedia. And even this article is probably not good enough because most of the information was from the Wikipedia article about Krishna from the year 2005 (it hadn't been edited since then), containing almost nothing about the relation of Krishna to Thelema, or even Crowley's canonization. In fact, the article had been tagged by the wiki with "This article needs more information within the context of Thelema (i.e. Aleister Crowley, historical event, organization, text, or cultural aspect of Thelema). You can help by expanding it." Because of the lack of an established, notable connection between Krishna and Thelema from enough secondary sources, I think that the Thelema information on the Wikipedia Krishna article may not be notable enough to remain, until there are additional reliable documented secondary sources to justify its existence in the article. Additional searching can be done, but so far I have not found any good secondary sources. --Shruti14 t c s 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a democratic web-site, right. three (Ism Schism, Shruti14 and Govinda Ramanuja dasa) out of five people (the other two being Imc and Abecedare)DO NOT WANT THIS SECTION on the Krishna article. The Majority of us have shown the reasons and sentiments for why this should not be on the article of Krishna. I think it is clear, without a shadow of a doubt, that this section should not be on the article. As I have written earlier, if this was a Jewish or Muslim article...this would have be taken out immediately because of the protest. For the past week or so, the three of us have shown such a protest, evidence and reasonable argument why this section should not be on. If Ism Schism and Shruti14 can please respond to also giving their word and thoughts on the stituation of deleting the section. The Majority of people want the Thelemic section gone.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Govinda Ramanuja dasa, I need to note here that part of the section above was copied from the Krishna talk page. To my knowledge User:Abecedare has only commented on the Krishna talk page, not on this discussion page. I copied his remarks here so that his point of view would be respresented. Also, concerning what you stated above, I agree with you. This should be a democratic oriented discussion, period. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to let every one know, Abdacare, has threat to bar me from editing the Krishna section, this is warning Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Krishna, you will be blocked from editing. Abecedare (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First, abadacare, do you have the authority to threaten me by barring me from editing? If not, let us contest it with every one else and Wikipedia! You dont have right to threaten some one, from editing. Are you an admin? No! All of us, especially you and me, must find resolution with Wikipedia. Then, if THEY say not to edit the Thelema section...I wouldnt. If they say it is ok, I am going to.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I dont think Crowley's personal views on Krishna are relevant to the Krishna article. It has yet to be proved that the Thelema community itself holds views of Krishna as a deity. There are two sources: one passage of scripture and a book that has yet to be quoted from to discern its relevance as a reliable source. This is still unreliable and unverifiable information that should remain out of the article until it is confirmed. Thanks.Ism schism (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections in PERSONAL message to Ism Schism

Several days ago, I send a personal message to Ism Schism, and Wikidas came into Ism Schism "my talk" and made edits to my message to him....this is corresponce between the two of us. Also, I must make an apology, my english is not good, and I am sorry for any mis-spelled words and etc. But, to come into another editors personal "my talk" and do this I dont think it is not appropriate. And, it shows what kind of person he is and the group he represents. I and other hindus have experienced this kind of behavior with the ISKON/Gaudiya before in the L.A. area. Then he puts a precautionary notice in Ism Schims "my talk" after I responded back for the first message I sent him. I knew that it was a matter of time when some one from this group will start acting this way.

Dear Wikidas, even IF...I wrote the message to Ism Schism with incorrect spelling. You had no reason to come and edit A PERSONAL MESSAGE, between the both of us. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not? It if adds to the weight of the message (or lack of it)... Wikidās 08:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats typical for An....ISKON (and notice that I spelt it wrong, just for you ISKONites)This is the Typical behavior for you guys....Long sorid history, for your group! Filled with petty, neurotic things and actions like this. This is WHAT kind of person your are and your "group".Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You both have some good points to your arguements, but I would like to address the discussion above as it relates to Vaishnavism. My suggestion is that, in the future, these problems discussed above could be resolved with different working groups for various Vaishnava groups. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Good point. I will be spelling ISKCON correctly for now. Namaskar Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of Ekadasi and Ekadashi

The discussion on merging Ekadasi and Ekadashi can be found at Discussion on merging Ekadasi and Ekadashi. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, and the proposition to merge the articles is accepted, I will begin merging the articles soon. --Shruti14 t c s 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious leaders and reliable sources

I have been looking over the Stephen Knapp article and its potential references. I have yet to find any that meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Any information on potential references (reliable sources) would be appreciated. My concern is that without reliable sources and only a list of his self published books, this article seems to be an advertisement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I have read and seen about him, I'm not sure whether he is notable enough for Wikipedia, though I don't think he is. He writes and publishes not-wonderfully-famous books on his own views of Hinduism, the existence of Vedic culture, and world peace. His personal website again reveals little more than his own not-so-famous books and views. Other than his published works (which are published by iUniverse, a SELF-publishing site) he appears to be much like any average practicing ISKCON member and/or Gaudiya Vaishnava and therefore fails WP:NOTE. Furthermore, his article is written more like an ad or flyer than an article, with little more than a link to his website and a list of books. Searching for notable sources on the Internet does little good, as all I find are links from his website, a few minor articles he wrote for About Hinduism, and a long list of numerous other unrelated people who share his name. I suggest that it be proposed for deletion or speedy deletion unless it is shown that he is notable enough for his article to remain. --Shruti14 t c s 00:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the article does appear as an advertisement for this individual's books, unless reliable sources are found. I also agree that it should be tagged for speedy deletion or for Afd. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
For the reasons outlined in this discussion, a speedy deletion tag has been placed on the article. It should be submitted to AfD if others agree with the proposed deletion. --Shruti14 t c s 01:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The deletion discussion can be found at, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Knapp. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Another article that I have come across that is written like an advertisement is Swami_B._G._Narasingha. If anyone has any reliable sources please let me know. I have been looking for the past few days. If nobody has any additions to the article then I believe that it should be taggged for speedy delete (as an advertisement and personal website), or through Afd. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that some ISKCON devotees are putting their personal gurus on lists in the articles. I think that for any thing conserning ISKCON, that ONLY Srila Prabhupada SHOULD be listed. I have been listening to the Horror stories for about four years of some of the personal gurus written on the article lists. One of the main ones listed first on the Western scholars section on the Vaishnava article...I was told personally by a high ranking devotee that RUNS the BBT in L.A., that this "Goswami" didnt even beleive in Prashadam!!! He got into an arguement with this..."guru" about "if Prashadam is truely Spiritual or it is superstition".....and some ISKCON devotee had the nerve to put him on a list of Western scholars and Vedanta representives?! These ISKCON devotee REALLY dont know the history or character their own "gurus". We need to REALLY scrutinize the "gurus" mention in the article lists. But, I do think that the ISKCON/Gaudiya bias on alot of articles is pretty much gone to a certain extent. But, Major Scrutinizing on all Hindu-related articles must be maintained.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
After looking through various articles of Vaishnava religious leaders, I have noticed an over representation of biographies of living Vaishnava gurus or "authors" who are unsourced and appear to be written as advertisements. Some of these are for books and others seem to be written as POV from personal guru websites. To be specific, I feel that thes articles below are written as advertisements for books or personal gurus. Stephen Knapp, Swami B. G. Narasingha, Krishna Dharma, Sacinandana Swami, Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha Goswami Maharaj and Indradyumna Swami. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree also. And, I will help look for these things in the articles too. Please let me know if I can help in any way.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - The unsourced articles or articles that lack reliable sources (see WP:RS) and the articles that are considered non-notable (see WP:NOTE) should be nominated for AfD. --Shruti14 t c s 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Hindu views of Krishna

These subjects should be in a trivia section, seperate article or a list. These topics are only as relevant as one ideology's view of another, and as there are thousands of ideologies, these topics should be placed in a trivia section, or a seperate list. Arguing that Thelma is relevant to Krishna is trivial. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree and if you like, please let me know how I can help. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to let every one know, I have edited the thelema section twice. Abadacare has changed it once and now has threatened me by barring me from editing the Krishna article. This is his message to me below.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to let every one know, Abdacare, has threat to bar me from editing the Krishna section, this is warning below.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Krishna, you will be blocked from editing. Abecedare (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First, abadacare, do you have the authority to threaten me by barring me from editing? If not, let us contest it with every one else and Wikipedia! You dont have right to threaten some one, from editing. Are you an admin? No! All of us, especially you and me, must find resolution with Wikipedia. Then, if THEY say not to edit the Thelema section...I wouldnt. If they say it is ok, I am going to.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
After looking at the new changes...I think this is a some what good compromise on the Krishna article. But, the fact remains that this thelemic information should not be on a Hindu article, it is giving validity to this group. No matter how much sources or information to back it. Again, if this was a Jewish or Muslim article...it would have been taken out immediately by wikipedia. And, the insistance of pro-thelemite editors to try to keep this section is un-called for, and, to hide behind the procedures also. I do not appreiciate the threats and deletions of my messages and edits by abecedare. And, the idea that he is some webmaster on the article, reverting and re-editing other editors works. So, just like Ism Schism...I'll back off. And, Not because of some "little" warning icon left by Abecedare.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lalita (gopi)

I want to add to the Lalita gopi section, but want it to be NPOV. I know of Gaudiya Vaishnava sources. Are there other Vaishnava sources too? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not many, if any at all - this is a primarily Gaudiya subject. You may add the Gaudiya sources as references if they are reliable sources, but please make a note that the beliefs stated are specifically Gaudiya beliefs. Stating which sect actually follows the beliefs, and maybe making a note that not all support the beliefs (and in fact, most do not) would keep the article NPOV. --Shruti14 t c s 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna and Thelema

If anyone would like to add to this debate on Talk:Krishna, please do so. What should have been a trivial discussion on a trivial topic has escalated to a rather heated debate and potential edit war, and we need the opinions of many more editors to help settle the matter quickly. --Shruti14 t c s 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the new changes...I think this is a some what good compromise on the Krishna article. But, the fact remains that this thelemic information should not be on a Hindu article, it is giving validity to this group. No matter how much sources or information to back it. Again, if this was a Jewish or Muslim article...it would have been taken out immediately by wikipedia. And, the insistance of pro-thelemite editors to try to keep this section is un-called for, and, to hide behind the procedures also. I do not appreiciate the threats and deletions of my messages and edits by abecedare. And, the idea that he is some webmaster on the article, reverting and re-editing other editors works. So, just like Ism Schism...I'll back off. And, Not because of some "little" warning icon left by Abecedare.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that most of this stuff should be categorized under the the heading "Western appropriations of Krishna." But, that is an highly unlikely as NPOV states that Krishna belongs to no culture, religion, region, etc... In light of this, the recent debate is not as insignificant as some have been stating. I feel that it is an important subject matter that editors will have to continually address. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
My only disagreement with that suggestion, other than the WP:NPOV standing on the issue, is that not all of these are practiced solely in the West (although the majority of them are). BTW - I think this discussion is better-suited for the Talk:Krishna page. --Shruti14 t c s 21:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point. I think the Krishna article is working out just fine. Also, I agree that the discussion's proper place for now is on the Krishna talk page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vaisnava-Sahajiya and Vaishnavism

I do not know much about Vaisnava-Sahajiya's place within Vaishnavism. Does anybody have any information on the present day community, or communities that practice Vaisnava-Sahajiya, and/or their position in the larger Vaishnava community? The only reference that I have is Edward Dimock's The Place of the Hidden Moon: Erotic Mysticism in the Vaisnava-Sahajiya Cult of Bengal (Chicago, 1966). As this source is over 40 years old, any new info or comments concerning the present day community (or communities) would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In particular, Edward Dimock mentions the ambiguity of Sri Ramananda Raya in terms of which community he was to be identified with. After reading this I checked out the article and it needs some work. My main question is, does the article need to reflect both Vaishnava and Vaishnava-Sahajiya descriptions. The article is in need of editing, but before I begin, does anybody have any thoughts on how to represent both perspectives? Here are two sources that demonstrate a Vaishnava-Sahajiya perspective, The Place of the Hidden Moon: Erotic Mysticism in the Vaisnava-Sahajiya Cult of Bengal, By Edward Dimock and The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, By Gavin D. Flood. I would appreciate any thoughts. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge, they (and similar Hindu sects) are at least somewhat frowned-upon by other Vaishnavas and Hindus in general. Most or all orthodox and/or traditional Hindus consider such beliefs an incorrect, "left-handed path" that only believers advocate as helping one spiritually. In any case, their beliefs and practices are certainly not part of mainstream Vaishnavism or Hinduism, and many would simply dismiss them as a cult. --Shruti14 t c s 23:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Shruti. I believe that they can be considered a heretical cult; according to the various orthodox/traditional Hindu denominations. But, it would be interesting to know their principles and ideas to have a understanding of them. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any thoughts concerning the Sri Ramananda Raya article? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Personally...I dont know. If it has any thing to do with ISKCON/Gaudiya...I perfer to only deal and help with Main stream Hinduism articles. The part about the brahmanas who were adhering to the vedic rituals and standard...I personally disagree with. Maybe add some pictures from ISKCON with brahmanas or with Caitanyacharya. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is indeed a Gaudiya subject, though not just ISKCON. The article itself, is IMO badly written and consisting primarily of quotes from a Gaudiya book, is not Wikified, not divided properly into sections, and in general not conforming to Wikipedia standard and is badly in need of a rewrite. --Shruti14 t c s 03:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Sahajiya case is complicated. Dimock's book is the classic study; I don't know of any other books that deal specifically with them, but they show up in practically any book that deals with Tantrism in Bengal. At the risk of oversimplifying, Sahajiya is basically an older Tantrika tradition that absorbed (or fused with) Vaishnava elements, and this was because several disciples of Caitanya (e.g. Ramananda Ray) were Tantrikas from before. Thus, if it makes any sense, Sahajiya may be more a "Vaishnava form of Tantrism" (Tantrikas adopted Vaishnava ideas) than a "Tantric form of Vaishnavism" (Vaishnavas took to Tantrika practices). In Bengal, their Tantrika bent is well-known (and puts them in bad odor), but their claim to spiritual descent from Caitanya is undisputed, which makes them Vaishnava, at least technically. rudra (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

By belief in Vishnu/Krishna, they are indeed Vaishnavas. However, due to their "left-handed" Tantrika practices, they are, to say the least, far from mainstream Vaishnava belief, and are often looked down upon because of their tantric beliefs and practices. I also agree with rudra's comments above. --Shruti14 t c s 02:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of the the Sri sukta Sri suktam page

Hey everyone. I would like to put an idea out there. There are two pages for the Sri Suktam. One is spelt Sri suktaM and the other Sri sukta. the first mention is a much better written and formatted page. While the latter one that is spelt Sri sukta, is just a sub-standard page. And, it was written with too much personal material, with hardly any useful information. I really think that the second one "Sri sukta" should be deleted and just leave the better formatted one instead....what does every one think? Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
According to modern transliteration, Sri suktaM would be nonstandard transliteration of the word. I think the information in Sri suktaM should be moved to the Sri sukta page, and THEN the Sri suktaM page should be deleted. In other words, a merge, with information transferred to the page with the correct article name and the other article deleted. --Shruti14 t c s 03:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, when can we do it. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with merge into Sri Sukta.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I deleted the information on the Sri Sukta page and pasted the info. from the Sri SuktaM on to it. So, how do we delete it? Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have redirected the page, but for some reason the redirect does not work properly - can someone please fix it? Thanks! --Shruti14 t c s 23:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Never mind - I figured out what the problem is and have fixed it. --Shruti14 t c s 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
As of now, Sri Suktam, Sri suktam, Sri Sukta, and Sri sukta redirect to the same page. --Shruti14 t c s 23:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to ask every one, some one typed in the whole sukta on the page. What about deleting the sukta on the page and just have links to very nice translations. I know of some really good links for Sri Sukta. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What's really bugging me now is the translations and transliterations provided - not exactly adhering to WP:MOS. It should probably be deleted, and links should be provided instead, but I'm not sure. --Shruti14 t c s 23:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
How do we make the translation WP:MOS? Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I believe that the general policy is to remove the line-by-line transliteration (which would be probably better-suited for WikiQuote/WikiSource or a similar direct-quoting reference site), replace it with a summary of the text and its contents, and add applicable and relevant quotes from the original when necessary. The transliteration sources should be linked either as references, external links, or both. This is what has been done to similar articles about religious texts. --Shruti14 t c s 16:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Shruti, I tried looking for good translations for the sukta, I only found one. Maybe you can help find some other translations. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
So far, I have only found this one. Books and articles are also acceptable, as long as they are cited and sourced properly. --Shruti14 t c s 16:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that the discussion should continue on the article's talk page. --Shruti14 t c s 02:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality on Venkateshwara page

Hey, I want to discuss the neutrality on Venkata. How about saying that he is incarnation or form of Vishnu, instead of the supreme God? It does sound...not neutral, to others beliefs in Hinduism. I'll go ahead and change it and just let me know what every one thinks. Namaskar. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be changed, but perhaps (in the interest of WP:NPOV) a note should be added somewhere for the sects of Vaishnavism that do believe Venkateshwara is the Supreme God, preferably with a sourced link. --Shruti14 t c s 23:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, please look at the changes that I made to the Venkateshwara page, please let me know what you think. It looks alot better, with better formating. It is much more stream line.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
While I like some of the changes made to the article, I do not think that I agree with all of them. (See here for a comparison of the article from before Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA made changes to what is there currently.) Parts of it still don't comply with WP:MOS, and more importantly, large portions of the article have been removed. I think we should keep some of the changes, but restore parts of the original article. --Shruti14 t c s 15:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Shruti and every one, I added a section for Vaishnavic belief of Vishnu being the supreme one God. I did some major cleaning up on the Venkata. page. I will be putting more information in the "symbolic description" section latter. Please take a look. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Sriti14 & Zeuspitar, I agree that the mention of the fact that Balaji is considered the supreme (svayam bhagavan) by some of his sevakas, may be just to mention as well that by some Gaudiya he is cosidered to be Dwarakadish - ie Krsna. That may help in expaining recent edits and the need of NPOV in the article. --Wikidās ॐ 10:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I personally dont think so. Venkateshwara is VISNU. Venkateshwara and Krishna are avataras of Vishnu. According to Scripture and the original Vaishnava traditions that existed before that advent of the brake-off groups like the Gaudiyas. What do you not understand about that. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, guys, I am very thankful that we can help each other, comprimise with one another to improve articles. It actually is quite nice. Please Shruti and everyone, let know what is wrong and I'll change them. Shruti, please help me to change what you think I did wrong. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comprimise on the Krishna page

Is there any way that every one can help with the situation of wikidas re-editing the Krishna pages second paragraph with an ISKCON slant. I reverted his edits and put back to the form before. I also alerted DaGizza admin about the situation. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
See comments on article's talk page. --Shruti14 t c s 15:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear every one, Hey, I think that the new edits to the Krishna page are really good and unbias. I think it is great and actually better than before. Thank every one for what you did. Namaskar.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Vaishnavism

The article was not exactly even close to well-written and needed lots of fixing. I have removed some POV statements, edited multiple major grammar problems, and fixed the major needed-to-be-fixed-NOW problems, but the article still needs much work. --Shruti14 t c s 17:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Shruti, I would like to help with improving this article. Please let me know, what needs to be done. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
For such a large tradition, the article is rather poor. It might be best if a few of us commit to particular sections of the article and/or some of the red links in the article. This work might be more of a long term type of thing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I will start with the red link Nathamuni. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikidas's edits on Vaishnava and other hindu pages

Dear all, Please give me some advise on wikidas's constant editting to suit his ISKCON cult slant. I was on the Vaishnava page, the beginning page paragraph stated that Vishnu/Narayana is supreme and that Krishna and other avataras. He changed it to give it an ISKCON slant. The way it was before was great, factual and unbiased. Vaishnava means "Worshiper of Vishnu" before his ISKCON/Gaudiya group came. I have also alerted the admin. DaGizza to help in mediating the conflict between him and myself. Page, after page has been given a "Krishna is first" ISKCON/Gaudiya slant. The beginning of the Vaishnava page was great before he touched it. If there is any way I can get help from other admins or others to help with this. What other editors say about the situation...I will do. Please respond with your options.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Svayam bhagavan

Another article badly in need of help - Svayam bhagavan is filled with POV (for multiple points-of-view, favoring and against the subject) and bad grammar, English usage, wording, style, misspellings, confusing writings, contradiction, and other problems - it's in need of a LOT of general cleanup. It doesn't cite too many sources. Currently Wikidas and I are the only editors actually working on it - will probably need more just to clean up the article with all its English problems. It also doesn't comply with WP:MOS. The problems are slowly but surely getting fixed. --Shruti14 t c s 00:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added some sources for the discussion concerning references and how these references are cited. I have posted these comments on the Svayam bhagavan talk page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements to Venkatesh. page

Dear everyone, Hey, I really think that the changes that everyone has made to the Venkatesh. page are wonderful. It looks alot better than before. It's more stream lined, cleaner, and more user-friendly. I am very glad to have worked with you all in making this much better page than it was before. And, I am very thankful to have done this seva/kainkarya/devotional service to Vishnu and the public.Love and Namaskar. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements on Vaishnava page

Thanks to every one who made the recent changes to the Vaishnava page. It is alot better than it was before!! I think it is neutral to all Sampradayams and cults of Vaishnavism. It gives a very informative,un-bias account of Vaishnavism to the public. The page looks GREAT!And, I want thank every one for helping to keep free from any "group" or cult slant. I hope that we all can keep an eye out to keep it that way. Love and Namaskar. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nara-Narayana

The article has been tagged for many issues. Please help improve the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shuddhadvaita and Pushtimarg

It has been proposed that the above two articles be merged. The discussion is at, Shuddhadvaita and Pushtimarg merger progposal. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

One was supposed to be the philosophy Shuddhadvaita another is the actual tradition - ie Pushtimarg. I would just clean them back to what they are supposed to be.Wikidās ॐ 11:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wikidas. Both articles should be kept. Shuddhadvaita is a concept concerning "pure non-dualism." Pushtimarg is a religious community. These are two seperate areas and should remain as two seperate articles. Other examples are Dvaitadvaita/Nimbarka sampradaya and Achintya Bheda Abheda/Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with Wikidās and Ism schism - both articles should be kept for the reasons stated above. --Shruti14 t c s 18:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two new articles

Vishnuswami (Vishnuswamin) and Rudra sampradaya are missing. Does anyone know of good reliable sources or supporting material for such articles? Wikidās ॐ 13:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have started to work on the Rudra sampradaya. I am starting with three sources, all text. I am sure there is much more and probable some better sources - but its a start. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I tagged both articles with an "underconstruction" sign, as both articles are new and there is more work to be done. The Vishnuswami article is also starting, slowly... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation proposal: Bhagavata

There is a common name for an early tradition, and there is also surviving middle age tradition. Its also a reference to anyone who follows Bhagavata Purana. There is a need for disambiguation, that is dealt with at present by notes at the end of Bhagavata article. Wikidās ॐ 13:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the proposal for disambiguation. Also see the article's talk page. --Shruti14 t c s 18:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion for wikidas's edits

Dear everyone, is there any way we all can discuss that matter of wikidas's edits,changes etc. to many, many articles that consern Hinduism. For instance, the Svayam Bhagavan article, which took me two and a half day to try to make as non-bias as possible. He goes through re-changes the edits to suit is own group belief. And, his edits on the Narayana article..." In Kumara Purana he is identified with Brahman and Krishna-Vishnu. In Brahmavaivarta Purana, Narayana is considered different to Krishna and in the same text he is considered part of Krishna. [1]"..I really would like to contest this. Where is it in these puranas does it say this? And, most importantly, in regards to the history section of the Svayam Bhagavan and other articles that he has done, is his insistance on this supposed "pre-Vaishnava" Vasu-deva/Krishna cult to justify his group belief. He has cause many editor lots of TIME in re-editing his work, varifying his references, and arguments. What can we do?Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Workgroup Swaminarayan

FYI - There is a proposal for a Swaminarayan workgroup in the process. If anyone is interested in being an editor on this project, or helping in any way, it is still in the proposal process. Any thoughts, comments and/or participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Category Move

I propose a move of [[Category:Gaudiya Vaishnava]] to [[Category:Gaudiya Vaishnavism]] to remain consistent with similar titles (for example - [[Category:Vaishnavism]]). --Shruti14 t c s 03:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SHORTCUTS!

For those of you who prefer Wikipedia shortcuts, WP:HINDU/V and WP:VAISHNAVA lead to the WikiProject Vaishnavism page, and WT:HINDU/V and WT:VAISHNAVA lead to this page. --Shruti14 t c s 03:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Article Move/Creation

I propose a move of Sri sampradaya to its own article, to remain consistent with the other sampradayas, instead of redirecting to Sri Vaishnavism, since they are not necessarily the same. --Shruti14 t c s 04:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I support, there should be consistency within the project, a project in itself. Wikidās ॐ 07:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Y Done - see Sri Sampradaya. It has been capitalized to remain consistent with the other article: Rudra Sampradaya, Brahma Sampradaya, etc. --Shruti14 t c s 23:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFD nomination of Kathia Baba

Author is absent. Can someone please look at this article and advise if you can delete or improve it? Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathia Baba. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Krishnaism

There is a proposal, here, for a WikiProject Krishnaism subgroup. Please voice your opinions and discuss there. --Shruti14 t c s 23:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two Sampradaya Templates?

Why do we have both Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs and Template:VaisnavaSampradayas when only one is needed? --Shruti14 t c s 23:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:VaisnavaSampradayas is better, the other should be deleted.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There are multiple things wring with Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs. The first is the most obvious - you can tell that it was created from Template:VaisnavaSampradayas because the v•d•e (view/discuss/edit) links of Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs all point to the Template:VaisnavaSampradayas links instead! Also, the template is Chaitanya Mahaprabhu-centric, with the caption stating "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu united four sampradayas into one", and with the bottom line pointing to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. The template also only points to the leaders of each sampradaya, while Template:VaisnavaSampradayas correctly points to both the sampradayas and their leaders, as well as linking to their associated philosophies. Template:VaisnavaSampradayas is more complete, accurate, NPOV, and has no (known) link problems. For these reasons I think Template:VaisnavaSampradayas should be used and Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs deleted. --Shruti14 t c s 23:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming/Moving Template

The correct English spelling is Vaishnava. I propose a move from Template:VaisnavaSampradayas to Template:VaishnavaSampradayas to reflect the English spelling. --Shruti14 t c s 23:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Shruti, while it used to be English spelling, most if not all academic publication of this century and last 25 years came to recognize that actual spelling is Vasnavism. As for example this one:
Gavin, Flood. Hare Krishna: Hinduism, Vaisnavism, and ISKCON: Authentic Traditions or Scholarly Constructions?. www.icsahome.com Vol. 1, No. 1, 2001. Retrieved on 2008-05-11. Im not sure if its a good example... but Google Scholar gives 1,580 hits for Vaisnavism as compared with 1,770 for older spelling that is currently practically extinct (ie it is for works pre-1980 generally). That lands a natural question on the naming of the whole project and the article itself? Wikidās ॐ 08:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The "Vaisnava" spelling is more common throughout ISKCON and similar groups who are known for their usage of transliteration rather than common English spelling (for example, Kṛṣṇa instead of Krishna, and Vaisnavism instead of Vaishnavism) and such tranliteration as a replacement for English words is not as common in "mainstream" Vaishnavism as it is within those groups. In fact, the example you used above (Gavin Flood's publication) is a perfect example, a subject dealing largely with ISKCON and the Hare Krishna movement and not just "mainstream" Vaishnavism or Hinduism. --Shruti14 t c s 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the reason is that some of the systems were formulated before 1970s and ISKCON used system recommended by academia. What is important is how academia spells the word. But then again, its something that can change. When you say English - do you mean like in the dictionary? BTW "Mainstream Vaisnavism" and "Mainstream Vaishnavism" both gave me zero Google Scholar hits.... BTW the Google books search on the terms refers to 3 hits - Caste, Culture, and Hegemony: Social Domination in Colonial Bengal - Page 83 by Sekhar Bandyopadhyay - Social Science - 2004 - 256 pages quotes:
... but indeed strengthened the dominant version of Hinduism. The Vrindaban school began to dominate mainstream Vaishnavism. All of them refers to Vaishnava sahajiya as not accepted/not being as Mainstream Vaisnavism. And book on dictionary of art refers to pre-ramanuja tradition as mainstream, which it was back then.[3] I would appreciate if you do not use this term to define any sects that are considered Vaishnava (or Vaisnava:-) since its normally applied to tantric or deviant schools.[4] That confuses the things - as all major traditions in Vaishnavism are mainstream and are more then anything depend on the location rather then a name. Wikidās ॐ 07:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Angkor Wat

The temple of Angkor Wat has been added to the Vaishnavism wikiproject. I am unfamiliar with this subject, after reviewing the article, it appears to be very important. The temple was first dedicated to Vishnu and over time became a Buddhist temple. Its history is very interesting. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The temple was indeed originally a Hindu temple dedicated to Vishnu, and became a Buddhist one after a time of Buddhism rising in popularity in the region. It is an old(er) temple in Cambodia. --Shruti14 t c s 03:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Source for Hindu temples

When looking for reliable sources for North American temples, I came across Harvard University's Pluralism Project. They have profiles of some notable Vaishnava temples that can be very useful. The link is, Harvard University Pluralism Project's Profile of Hindu Temples. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD: Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs

I have nominated Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs for deletion as suggested. Please comment and support/oppose the nomination there. Thanks --Shruti14 t c s 01:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vithoba

Peer review is needed at the article. I have expanded and reorganized the article. The only thing left is the lead. Suggestions are needed to improve the article further, before going for a GA nomination. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)