No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
No edit summary |
||
Line 182: | Line 182: | ||
:It is best to leave it at born and died. Terms like "avatar birth" and "avatar death" are confusing and not used by reliable sources. [[User:Dm51c]] has not provided any [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to back up their claims, but rather is relying on [[WP:OR|original research]]. [[User:Chariotrider555|Chariotrider555]] ([[User talk:Chariotrider555|talk]]) 22:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC) |
:It is best to leave it at born and died. Terms like "avatar birth" and "avatar death" are confusing and not used by reliable sources. [[User:Dm51c]] has not provided any [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to back up their claims, but rather is relying on [[WP:OR|original research]]. [[User:Chariotrider555|Chariotrider555]] ([[User talk:Chariotrider555|talk]]) 22:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
Hi,I have quoted freda matchet reference here and other source in my edits in the main article which agrees with my proposal implicitly. Its not my original research as all primary sources support have consensus. And secondary refernce |
Hi,I have quoted freda matchet reference here and other source in my edits in the main article which agrees with my proposal implicitly. Its not my original research as all primary sources support have consensus. And secondary refernce I added corroborate the primary source. And for confusion i belive ,original terms should be used as in the case of illuosory world is mentioned in the advaita article which is technically wrong as world is mithya , not illusion. Here terms like born and died are inappropriate and for this avatar_start and avatar_end will shed more light as according to hinduism given freda source and other source its not a real birth and death like mortals but done using maya and so is technically called descent of deity or appearance or manifestation. |
||
Right now the terms used doesnt convey this perspective or distort this and are biased. |
Right now the terms used doesnt convey this perspective or distort this and are biased . "Traditionally however there is unanimous evidence that avatar originates in heaven not on earth" "incarnation in Hinduism and Christianity The Myth of the God-Man|author=Daniel E Bassuk. |
||
freda matchet hints that "Christian are reluctant to use terms like appearance or manifestation " which are used for hindu deity. |
|||
i can add many other secondary sources. and for a primary source, i can add tons of it. |
|||
i accept that avatar_birth can somewhat confusing and can be redundant, |
|||
i now propose 'avatar_start' , manifestation' or 'descent' ,' appearance'(anyone of the four) ,similarly in the case of died. as current term are not a correct translation and not representative of what is conidered in hinduims. |
|||
Thanks [[User:Dm51c|Dm51c]] ([[User talk:Dm51c|talk]]) 06:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:43, 1 February 2021
![]() | Krishna has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Krishna : GOCE Review
Hello, Ms Sarah Welch - I have completed the copy-edit of Krishna that you requested. I hope you approve. I will be adding a few questions and concerns here in a few minutes. – Corinne (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
1) In the second paragraph of the lead you have this sentence:
- His iconography shows him in different stages of his life, such as an infant eating butter, a young boy playing a flute, a young man with Radha or surrounded by women devotees, or a friendly charioteer giving counsel to Arjuna.
and then a few sentences later, this sentence:
- They portray him in various perspectives: a god-child, a prankster, a model lover, a divine hero, and as the Supreme Power.
I wonder whether these sentences are not similar enough that they could be consolidated. If you agree, you'll have to decide the best place to put the new sentence. Alternatively, you could leave off the details that follow "in different stages of his life" so as not to repeat them.
- I moved the sentence, rather than consolidating them. One context summarize the scope the legends, while the other the iconography. There is value in retaining them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
2) In the second paragraph in Krishna#Names and epithets is the following sentence:
- Based on his name, Krishna is often depicted in idols as black- or blue-skinned.
You'll see that in this edit, I added a hyphen after "black", so that it means "black-[skinned] or blue-skinned". But after I saved my edit, I noticed that in the Krishna#Iconography section, it says:
- His iconography typically depicts him as black or dark, reflecting his name, or with blue skin like Vishnu.
This sentence seems to make a distinction between the quality of being black (or dark) – somehow different from being black-skinned – and the characteristic of having blue skin. That's all right, and I realize there may be a reason behind it. Shall I remove the hyphen I had added to the earlier sentence so that the earlier sentence more closely parallels this later sentence?
- The black-, blue- etc makes more sense. Fixed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC
- You only need hyphens when it is two adjectives before a noun, or an adjective and a past participle functioning as an adjective: "a black- or blue-skinned man". – Corinne (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
3) In the second paragraph of Krishna#Historical and literary sources, I made a few small edits to improve clarity. Read slowly, everything makes sense until the last part of the last sentence. This paragraph is pretty dense stuff, but expressed clearly, it does progress logically and make sense, but it becomes unclear (to me, anyway) with the second half of this sentence:
- Other scholars such as Archer state that the coincidence of both names, of Krishna and Devika, appearing in the same verse cannot be dismissed easily, and that this Krishna may be the same as one found later, such as in the Bhagavad Gita. [italics added by me for emphasis]
If you could somehow add just a bit to make it a little clearer for the average Wikipedia reader, I think that would help. In other words, clarify "this Krishna" and "as one found later". (The word "later" is used quite a bit in this paragraph.) No need to make the sentence a lot longer, just clearer.
- Rewrote it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC
- Here are the sentences as they are now:
- Other scholars disagree that the mention of Krishna and Devika in the ancient Upanishad may be unrelated to the later Hindu god of the Bhagavad Gita fame. For example, Archer states that the coincidence of both names, of Krishna and Devika, appearing in the same verse cannot be dismissed easily.
- The first sentence is still not clear. What follows "Other scholars disagree that" must be something that has just been stated, and that would normally be what one or more scholars have claimed. Thus, the tentative "may be unrelated" is inappropriate. It needs to be a more definite verb, something other scholars have stated is true, or probably true. I suggest something like:
- Other scholars disagree that the mention of Krishna and Devika in the ancient Upanishad is unrelated to the later Hindu god...,
- or, slightly more accurately:
- Other scholars disagree that the Krishna mentioned along with Devika in the ancient Upanishad is unrelated to the later Hindu god...
- (If you prefer the phrase "the Krishna and Devika mentioned in...," you'll have to change "is unrelated" to "are unrelated". Also, since "the later Hindu god" is singular, it is better to use a singular noun before the verb: "the Krishna...is unrelated to the later Hindu god".)
- Also, the second sentence could be smoothed out a bit. I think "of Krishna and Devika" can be left out. If you add "Upanishad" before "verse", it will be clear that the two names are the two names mentioned in the previous sentence.
- For example, Archer states that the coincidence of both names appearing in the same Upanishad verse cannot be dismissed easily.
- or:
- For example, Archer states that the coincidence of
boththe two names appearing together in the same Upanishad verse cannot be dismissed easily. – Corinne (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- For example, Archer states that the coincidence of
- Don't know if you saw the above suggestion for further revision. – Corinne (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- {ping|Corinne}} I split that sentence into two and changed it to, "Other scholars disagree that the mention of Krishna and Devika in the ancient Upanishad may be unrelated to the later Hindu god of the Bhagavad Gita fame. For example, Archer states that the coincidence of both names, of Krishna and Devika, appearing in the same verse cannot be dismissed easily." Please feel free to reword further to improve it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC
I know. I had copied your new sentences, above, for easy reference, and added further comments and suggestions. If you have no objection to the following revised sentences (indicated separately, just above), I'll make the changes:
- Other scholars disagree that the Krishna mentioned along with Devika in the ancient Upanishad is unrelated to the later Hindu god of the Bhagavad Gita fame. For example, Archer states that the coincidence of the two names appearing together in the same Upanishad verse cannot be dismissed easily. – Corinne (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Corinne: My bad and a big "oops" on my part! sorry, I missed it two times! Yes, please, your comment makes sense. Please change it. Thanks for following up and pardon my oops!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC
4) More in a few minutes. – Corinne (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Corinne: you are awesome! I will work on these this week. Please keep the comments coming, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Well, it wasn't a few minutes. I got distracted by television. Here are a few more:
4) At the beginning of the Krishna#Indo-Greek coinage section, you have these sentences:
- Around 180 BCE the Indo-Greek king Agathocles issued some coinage bearing images of deities that are now interpreted as being related to Vaisnava imagery in India. The divinities displayed on the coins are interpreted as being related to Vishnu's avatars Balarama-Sankarshana with attributes consisting of the Gada mace and the plow, and Vasudeva-Krishna with attributes of the Shankha (conch) and the Sudarshana Chakra wheel.
I thought I had worked on at least the second sentence, but now I can't find what I did in the revision history. I think grammatically it is better than before I worked on it, but now I see that the second sentence repeats the structure of the first sentence: "are...interpreted as being related to". I know sometimes things get repeated because each sentence is from a different source, but when this happens, it is usually possible either to consolidate the sentences or to use alternate wording. I wonder if the "now", in "are now interpreted", in the first sentence is there to emphasize that the interpretation is relatively recent. I also notice that the first sentence uses "deities" and the second uses "divinities". Is it important that these two sentences remain separate? If not, I think they can be consolidated. If you agree, we need to select which word is better: deities or divinities, then remove the unnecessary words and add the remaining material, perhaps after "..., with Vishnu's avatars Balarama-Sankarshana displaying attributes..." (or some other wording). If you prefer to keep the sentences separate, then we need to select alternate wording for the second sentence to avoid repeating "are interpreted as being related to". Perhaps that could all be dispensed with, and we could write, "The divinities displayed on the coins appear to be Vishnu's avatars..." or something like that.
- Indeed. Rewrote it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC
5) In the first paragraph of the section Krishna#Heliodorus pillar and other inscriptions, you have as the second sentence:
- Using modern techniques, it has been dated to between 125 and 100 BCE, and traced to an Indo-Greek who served as an ambassador of the Greek king Antialcidas to a regional Indian king.
The second paragraph begins:
- The three Hathibada inscriptions and one Ghosundi inscription, dated by modern methodology to the 1st century BCE, mention Samkarsana and Vasudeva, also mention that the structure was built for their worship.
The first sentence above is about the pillar, and the second sentence above is about the inscriptions. Is it important to mention the dating twice, once for the pillar and once for the inscriptions? I suppose it is possible that a pillar can be erected at a certain point and inscriptions added later, but did that happen here? Weren't the inscriptions added when the pillar was constructed and erected? I believe the date in the first sentence, "between 125 and 100 BCE", and the date in the second sentence, "the 1st century BCE", is the same. Do you really want to mention the dating twice? (Just by the way, you also have the same date in the next paragraph.)
- They are all different, in three different regions/states there, so different dates make sense. I clarified this and added the locations. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC
O.K. I understand. The addition of the locations is good. Here are two sentences as they are now:
- The Heliodorus inscription is not an isolated evidence. For example, three Hathibada inscriptions and one Ghosundi inscription, all located in the state of Rajasthan and dated by modern methodology to the 1st century BCE, mention Samkarsana and Vasudeva, also mention that the structure was built for their worship.
First of all, "evidence" is an uncountable noun – it has no singular and no plural form (but it takes a singular verb) – and we don't use the indefinite article a/an with an uncountable noun. You could just take out "an":
- The Heliodorus inscription is not isolated evidence.
or add "piece of":
- The Heliodorus inscription is not an isolated piece of evidence.
However, since this is starting a new paragraph, and, for the non-expert reader it may not even be clear what point was being made in the previous paragraph, instead of starting with a negative statement ("is not"), it would be helpful to kind of re-state the point that this evidence seems to be supporting. Something like this:
- Another piece of evidence for the.... is found in four inscriptions – three Hathibada inscriptions and one Ghosundi inscription – all located in the state of Rajasthan and dated by modern methodology to the 1st century BCE. These inscriptions mention Samkarsana and Vasudeva, and indicate that the structure was built for their worship. – Corinne (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
6) In the Krishna#Legends section, the tales from the different parts of Krishna's life are told in various sections. I notice that the verb tense differs in different sections. Since I had seen some present tense, I did change some past tense verbs to present tense, but then later saw some past tense and decided to leave it alone until I could ask you which tense you prefer. When writing about fiction, we often use present tense to describe events in the plot. When telling the events of a legend, I'm not sure which tense would be better. On the one hand, some people probably believe that the events in Krishna's life really took place, in which case past tense would make sense. On the other hand, telling the events in present tense makes the events have an exciting immediacy. In any case, the tense – at least for the parts that re-tell the events – should be consistent throughout these sections. Right now, Krishna#Birth is in past tense, Krishna#Childhood and youth is in past tense, Krishna#Adult (perhaps should be Adulthood to parallel Childhood) is in present tense, Krishna#Kurukshetra War and Bhagavad Gita is in present tense, and Krishna#Death is in present tense. Read through these sections and decide which tense you prefer (for the re-telling of events in Krishna's life, not for other things). Let me know, and I'll make them consistent. (Present tense is also used to describe events in the legend in the Krishna#Jainism and Krishna#Buddhism sections.)
- Indeed. The mix came from leaving the historic contributions of other editors unchanged. My bad, I should caught and fixed it. Made the first two consistent. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC
7) The second paragraph in Krisha#Proposed datings begins:
- Other scholars state that the Puranas are not a reliable source for dating Krishna or Indian history, because the content therein about kings and the history of various peoples, sages, and kingdoms is highly inconsistent across the manuscripts, and likely based in part on real events, in part on hagiography, and in part on expansive imagination or fabrication.
I feel this sentence needs work. It's a little long, but let's focus on two places:
(a) I think this clause: "because the content therein about kings and the history of various peoples, sages, and kingdoms is highly inconsistent across the manuscripts" is a bit wordy, particularly the middle part: "about kings and the history of various peoples, sages, and kingdoms". Why are "kings" separated from "people" and "kingdoms"?
(b) "Likely" is really an adjective ("a likely story"), not an adverb (even though it is often used as an adverb, particularly in the U.S.). Here, it is used as an adverb, modifying the verb "based on" ("it is likely based on" is the passive form of "someone likely bases it on"). It would be better to substitute "probably". But besides that, I can understand the content of the Puranas being based partly on real events and partly on hagiography, but something doesn't sound right when one says the content is based on imagination or fabrication. Perhaps the content is embellished by imagination, or modified by imagination, or expanded by imagination, but not based on imagination. Unless this actually reflects a source, in which case we should leave it alone, I recommend modifying the last part of this sentence so that "[based] in part on imagination or fabrication" is changed to something else.
- Agreed. Revised. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC
8) In the course of copy-editing the article, I made a few small edits to Krishna#Philosophy and theology to improve clarity. I hope you'll check those edits to make sure I didn't introduce any material errors. However, I still think this section could be made a little clearer for the average Wikipedia reader. I am concerned about the repeated use of the verb "present/presented". Sometimes, it is not completely clear what is meant by that verb.
(a) The first four sentences of the first paragraph are clear enough, but the fifth sentence is not:
- Krishna has been presented in a pure advaita (shuddhadvaita) foundations by Vallabha Acharya.
"Has been presented in a pure...foundations"?
(b) Right after the quote is the following sentence:
- While Sheridan and Pintchman both affirm Bryant's view, the latter adds that the Vedantic view emphasized in the Bhagavata is non-dualist described within a reality of plural forms.
I had re-structured the first part of this sentence, but I did not touch the second half of the sentence, and that part is not clear to me:
- ...the Vedantic view emphasized in the Bhagavata is non-dualist described within a reality of plural forms.
"is non-dualist described within a reality of plural forms"? What does that mean? Only an expert would know what that means.
- Rewrote it. This one is a tough one. As a reference resource, this needs a mention with sources, which I hope the rewrite accomplishes. Explaining it will overwhelm the article. I will meditate on this a bit more. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC
(9) I notice that several times throughout the article, Krishna is referred to as a "supreme being" or "supreme God". However, sometimes both words are in lower case, sometimes "supreme" is capitalized and "being" is not, and sometimes both words are capitalized. Unless it is a direct quote, in which case we shouldn't change the capitalization, I think the capitalization (or lack of capitalization) should be more consistent. If you do a search with the "Find" tool, you will be able to see all of them at once.
(10) In the third paragraph in Krishna#Performance arts, there is a sentence that I struggled with. You can see the changes I made here. Here is the sentence as it is now:
- Krishna-related literature such as the Bhagavata Purana accords a metaphysical significance to the performances and treats them as religious ritual, infusing daily life with spiritual meaning, thus representing a good, honest, happy life or as Krishna-inspired drama serving as a means of cleansing the hearts of faithful actors and listeners.
Structurally, the sentence is pretty much all right, but conceptually, I wonder.
- Krishna-related literature accords a metaphysical significance to the performances...or as Krishna-inspired drama?
There is something that doesn't make sense here. Performances are drama. Drama is a form of literature.
- The sentence was long and confusing indeed. I split it into two, hopefully they are more clear. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC
Can you work on this sentence a bit? Well, that's all for now. – Corinne (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Corinne: I embedded my replies above. Thank you for the detailed comments, it made my task so much easier! you are amazing! When you have a moment, please check the changes I made. Did they address the points?
@Kautilya3: the wiki-wizard you are, is there a way you can display this discussion here as well as on Talk:Krishna, without the crude cut-paste? Would help future editors appreciate and understand Corinne's efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have no idea. Normally, the admins know this kind of stuff. NeilN, SpacemanSpiff, can you help? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- How about just leaving a comment on the Krishna talk page – something like, "If anyone is interested in reading comments related to a recent GOCE review, see...", and providing a link to this section? – Corinne (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have no idea. Normally, the admins know this kind of stuff. NeilN, SpacemanSpiff, can you help? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
::::@Corrine: Will do. @Kautilya3: I was thinking of WP:TRANS, but the instructions there are much too complicated for me, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In the second paragraph of the section Krishna#Childhood and youth, you have re-written a sentence. The sentence as it is now is:
- These love stories are central to the metaphor-filled development of the Krishna bhakti traditions worshiping Radha Krishna.
The phrase "metaphor-filled development" is not the best wording. It is the stories that are "metaphor-filled", or by a stretch, possibly traditions, but not the development of traditions. You could move "metaphor-filled" to before "love stories":
- These metaphor-filled love stories are central to the development of...
You'll notice that the previous sentence starts, "These stories". It would be better style to avoid repeating that structure: "These stories...," "These love stories...". You could consolidate the two sentences:
- Other legends describe him as an enchanter and playful lover of the gopis (milkmaids) of Vrindavana, especially Radha. These metaphor-filled love stories are known as the Rasa lila and were romanticised in the poetry of Jayadeva, author of the Gita Govinda; they are also central to the development of the Krishna bhakti traditions worshiping Radha Krishna. – Corinne (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. Revised. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I saw your "Oops" comment above. No problem! I'm glad you approve of the revision I suggested. I already added it. (If you ever see any problem with a version I suggest, please don't be shy about telling me; together we can tweak the sentence until it says just what you want it to say.) May I make a few suggestions regarding the formatting of your replies to my various comments? First, I don't think you need to indent your reply so much. One more indent (made with one colon) than the previous comment is sufficient. Second, I do appreciate your effort to make your reply stand out by using the bold font. It is one way of doing that. I'd just like to mention two other ways I've seen editors use. One is just to use the regular font but set your reply or comment off with a bullet. In that case you don't necessarily have to indent if you are replying right after a numbered comment; you can, but the bullet might be sufficient. Another is to put your reply in a different color text. See User talk:William Harris#Dire wolf - Copy Edits. See Web colors and you can put {{Web Colors|state=collapsed}} on your user or talk page (in edit mode, with a heading such as "Text colors", then save) for easy access to the colors. Also see User talk:William Harris#Dire wolf copy edits, continued and User talk:William Harris#Dire wolf, more copy-edits, where William Harris did not always use color or bullets; when he did not use color he left a space before his reply and indented one space more than the previous comment or material. Just some ideas. – Corinne (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Corinne. Since your replies were so excellently detailed, I was wondering how to make it quicker for you and others to find my response. I didn't know that replies on the talk pages could be colored! at will, and I much appreciate the above guidance. You taught me something useful today, just like Bishonen, JJ, Kautilya3 and others have in past. I will study William Harris' edits, and improve me further! BIG thanks again, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- You are most welcome. You might want to place this in a handy place. It's the formatting you need to put text in a color: <span style="color: purple">Text goes here.</span>. Of course, you select the color you want. – Corinne (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Vedanta
I had re-structured the first part of this sentence, but I did not touch the second half of the sentence, and that part is not clear to me:
...the Vedantic view emphasized in the Bhagavata is non-dualist described within a reality of plural forms. "is non-dualist described within a reality of plural forms"? What does that mean? Only an expert would know what that means.
Rewrote it. This one is a tough one. As a reference resource, this needs a mention with sources, which I hope the rewrite accomplishes. Explaining it will overwhelm the article. I will meditate on this a bit more. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC
The above confusion appears because of a lack on understanding of Krishna's philosophy as presented in Bhagavad gita As It Is.
His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada comments that a clear understanding of of dvaita (duality) and advaita (oneness or non duality) comes when we hear from the bonafide source ... i.e Krishna or His pure devotee.... this is also mentioned in Bhagavad gita.... evam param para praptir..in Chapter 4 of Bhagavad gita as it is.
Therefore, Krishna is explaining and the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradya is also responsive by not changing the message but accepting he message as it is.... that is why they are known as pure devotees since they do not change the message of Krishna according to their whim ... please read the purports by Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Visvanatha Chaktavati and Narotamma dasa shakira and you will be able to clear and distintively understand the actual philosophy of Krishna is summarized as Achintya Bhed Abhed Tattva which means inconceivable oneness and difference... i.e. that we are qualitatively the same constitution as Krishna as spirit souls but quantitatively different to Him .... the example is given as a large fire (Krishna) and the small bright sparks around the fire as the jivas or the individual spirit souls.
When the jivas become envious of Krishna, they fall from the spiritual sky like embers from the fire and the fiery quality of Krishna consciousness is diminished and they enter th material atmosphere (which is the inferior energy of Krishna) just like when the embers of a fire fall away from the fire and fall to the wet ground.
On account of being in contact with material nature and desiring to enjoy without Krishna we forget our real identity as eternal parts and parcels of Krishna ...
mamaivamso jiva-loke jiva-bhutah sanatanah manah-sasthanindriyani prakrti-sthani karsati The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal, fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind. Bhagavad gita as it is 15.7.
Please changes references to duality and non duality or advaita and advaita to achintya bhed abhed tattva translated as inconceivable oneness and difference to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna.
In the service of Krishna.
Vaisnava das Vaisnava das (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Correction...Krishna is The Supreme Personality of Godhead ..
The 1st paragraph mentions Krishna as a major deity.
This is incorrect. The above terminology undermines Krishna's supreme position above and beyond any other living entity.
In both Bhagavad gita and Srimad Bhagavatam we hear about Krishna as the Bhagavan, Paramatma, and Brahman.
Krishna is also the source of all Svamsa avatars. If you imagine a line of candles each one being lit by the previous, then the original is Krishna and not Visnu or Narayana.
All the evidence in the revealed scriptures especially Srimad Bhagavatam explain this in great depth but unfortunately Hindus make a muddle of this. Krishna is the source of all incarnations. This is often and greatly overlooked by those who have not engaged in hearing the teachings of His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.
Krishna has been taken very cheaply and that is why this wiki page is full of errors as it does not accord with the Bhakti revealed scriptures which is the cream of all Vedic literature.
Actually his wiki page should be redrafted and the Bhaktivedanta Institute and BBT should be consulted to re-write this wiki page as there are major blunders on such an important topic!
We also find Krishna as being the source of everything... aham sarvasya prabhava.... in Bhagavad gita amongst other citations that can also be quoted.
To consider Krishna as a major deity is an insult to Krishna and grossly misguides anyone who reads this article on wikipedia about Krishna.
Please correct this terminology as Krishna being the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
In Krishna's service.
Vaisnava das Vaisnava das (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Krishna when he appears in this world, unlike other incarnations he does not take birth. In other words He comes as He is and this is corroborated in Srimad Bhagavatam. The other avatars are avatars of Krishna like Lord Kapila, Lord Rama, Lord Nrsinghadev etc.
When Krishna appears in the material world, he appears as the original 2 armed Krishna in the spiritual world or Goloka Vrindavana. He therefore never has a material body unlike the mortal conditioned living entities in the material world and therefore does not take birth or does not die and this is also mentioned in chapter 4 of Bhagavad gita as it is.
Vaisnava das (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2021
The word "Consorts" should be replaced with "Spouse"
One cant call these religious dieties as consorts as they are spouses. 45.112.146.87 (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The meaning of consort is "a wife, husband, or companion, in particular the spouse of a reigning monarch." What's the problem. .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 15:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Good wikipedia Vaishaliborse (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Avatar_birth and Avatar_end instead of Born and Died
i think the info box title like avatar_birth and avatar_end are more true, suitable and 'neutral for main deities in hinduism' like rama and kirhsna instead of born and died which are used for mortal. as this article central focus is Krishna as a deity instead of krishna as a historical person. and religious or deity article doesn't has to necessary check for the scientific plausibility. as following this line of reasoning even abodes like Vaikuntha, or most of the things related are not historical, and are myth/belief or non-falsifiable. but, since clearly the central thrust of this article is krishna as major hindu deity so infobox should reflect the almost universal position of wider Hinduism,and in my last edit i haven't removed any sources. also i want to change the structure in the line where its mentioned that ramdev pir is an incarnation of krishna to something 'like there are lot of personalties througout history who are considered by their followers to be an incarnation of divine such as ramdev pir.' as its sourced from news article.
Dm51c (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Dm51c Well...I don't mind using avatar_birth or avatar_death, but I would like to add some points.
- First of all, most of the elements of infobox is about the avatar not the Omnipotent Krishna (who incarnated as Vishna, as per Krishnaism).
- For eg, his parents are Devak........ but if we take the more divine veiws, he is self born. .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 11:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
User:245CMR
thanks for your concern.
of course this belief is not shared by just krishnaism but by wider vaishnavism and even hinduism as a whole.
even taking into Advaita (i have affinity to it) or wider Hinduism like shakta and others , the belief is exactly same. भवामि जात इव आत्ममायया आत्मनः मायया न परमार्थतो लोकवत्। (adi shankaracharya commentary gita 4.6)C ., that the birth taking is illusion using atma-maya not like real birth(parmarthato) of common people . जन्म मायारूपं कर्म च साधूनां परित्राणादि मे मम दिव्यम् अप्राकृतम्(adi shankaracharya, commentary gita 4.9), that the birth and actions are with help of his maya and are divine(alaukik and) not of prakriti. this belief is common point even in wider Hinduism, so i think 'avatar_start' and 'avatar_end' captures this better. and its also representative of Hinduism as a whole, and are not going much into Krishnaism. i dont think there mentoiong krishna parents,consorts,sons is in contradiction its mentioned in text, but its also mentioned several times that its not a regular birth but start of avatar. so in building a wikibox of major hinduisms deity ,this would be a perfectly neutral term.
i think you will agree with it . thank you.Dm51c (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Dm51c: Ok, before you change any thing, wait for some other users. .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 16:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@JRDkg: Please share your opinions .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 06:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@245CMR: I don't think this is needed as according to many historians (and also according to the source which is attached with died parameter) Krishna was an actual person. Hence the born and died parameters. As Wikipedia is more concerned with facts, I think it is more appropriate to leave it as it is. I agree with your point though that most of it is already talking about avatar. JRDkg (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: Would you like to provide some insights on this? JRDkg (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
JRDkg@Dm51c: The article is more about the deity rather than Historical views. A more historical Krishna is mentioned in the Vāsudeva article, but that article focuses more on the cult than the person. According to me, birth and death are easier to understand, but I don't mind using the alternate proposal if the consensus supports it. .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 07:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@245CMR:
@JRDkg:
i have already told that this article focus in on krishna as a hinduism deity, that why in the main intro its not mentioned of historain view, or view of another religiion ike jainism on krishna which will clutter infobox. i have already givern reason that mpt only all vaishnavs sects but this is a near-unanimous belief of wider Hinduism, as i have given shankracharya bhasya on bhagvata gita. so infobox should relfect the tenents of what hinduism considers of a deity. that why he have abode mentioned , weapnos mentiones, or other things mentioned,which would be non-historical strictly. all primary sources are in agreement , i can use tons of it, and here is a secondary source.
""Although its primary meaning is descent; , the world avatara s often translated into english as incarnation. This is misleading because it suggests too strong a resemblance to the incarnation of christian theology. The latin incarnation ,lke the greek ensarkois which it transaltes, implies that what is important to the Christian concept is that the divine personage should be in the flesh.ie totally real in human tersm, all of a piece with the rest of huaman history. Whereas Christians have been reluctant to use words like appearance,or manifestation of the incarnate lord , such ideas are implict in term sf avatar since it has association with the theatre(rangavatra, entering on stage is a word for the acting profession). the avatar is God appearing up the world stage , having descended from the highest level of reality to that of trailokya in order to perform beneficial actions. It is not simply a question of the transformation of any celestial being into another shape."" Freda matchet krishna a lord or avatar page 4.
so avatar_start or avatra_end captures this perfectly better as its, wider Hinduism belief, and is accurate. Dm51c (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- JRDkg: Infobox is difficult to maintain in wikipedia. Best practice would be to keep whatever is supported by the scholarly sources, avoid questionable sources and avoid blogging. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Dm51c: please don't change for now, wait for atleast 1 week for other users to join the discussion. You can advertise this discussion .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 08:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC) @Redtigerxyz, MRRaja001, Fylindfotberserk, and Chariotrider555: you can join the discussion, if interested.
Not done
@245CMR: Dm51c is currently blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing on Krishna. If anyone wants they can still share their opinions. JRDkg (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- JRDkg: Restoring my text above, likely an innocent or accidental change. WP:TPNO : do not alter others' comments. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry that was accidental JRDkg (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- It is best to leave it at born and died. Terms like "avatar birth" and "avatar death" are confusing and not used by reliable sources. User:Dm51c has not provided any reliable sources to back up their claims, but rather is relying on original research. Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi,I have quoted freda matchet reference here and other source in my edits in the main article which agrees with my proposal implicitly. Its not my original research as all primary sources support have consensus. And secondary refernce I added corroborate the primary source. And for confusion i belive ,original terms should be used as in the case of illuosory world is mentioned in the advaita article which is technically wrong as world is mithya , not illusion. Here terms like born and died are inappropriate and for this avatar_start and avatar_end will shed more light as according to hinduism given freda source and other source its not a real birth and death like mortals but done using maya and so is technically called descent of deity or appearance or manifestation. Right now the terms used doesnt convey this perspective or distort this and are biased . "Traditionally however there is unanimous evidence that avatar originates in heaven not on earth" "incarnation in Hinduism and Christianity The Myth of the God-Man|author=Daniel E Bassuk. freda matchet hints that "Christian are reluctant to use terms like appearance or manifestation " which are used for hindu deity. i can add many other secondary sources. and for a primary source, i can add tons of it.
i accept that avatar_birth can somewhat confusing and can be redundant, i now propose 'avatar_start' , manifestation' or 'descent' ,' appearance'(anyone of the four) ,similarly in the case of died. as current term are not a correct translation and not representative of what is conidered in hinduims.
Thanks Dm51c (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)