![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:WP1.0 Template:Old Hinduism COTW
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Japanese carving
The image from the Japanese temple is misleading. It is that of a Bodisattva and there are other similar images in the temple showing the Bodhisattvas playing various instruments. Check it out on google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.110.12 (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Deletion or merging of the sections
I guess this falls outside of copy edit and need to be discussed on the talk page prior to changes. Section on Krishnology is critical to this article and can not be merged into others. Wikidās ॐ 06:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I used WP:BOLD. You can revert and we can discuss it, here.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Krishnology has its own article. It is therefore not critical to this article. Imc (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is certainly not a trivia item, that has its own article. Wikidās ॐ 21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Overuse of references
There's references given for lots of things now, but if they are all well quoted, then they are introducing errors. Errors that in in some cases should be apparent from a simple use of a Sanskrit English dictionary, or in other cases an English dictionary and grammar.
'go' in Sanskrit refers to cattle, that is bulls, cows, and calves. Check a Sanskrit dictionary. Not cows though the word is etymologically related. Cattle is the collective English term. Check an English dictionary, it does not need a reference.
Govinda is often translated as herdsman, but then so is Gopala. The separate meanings of go and vindu are cattle and 'to find'. Check a Sanskrit dictionary.
The article in the English phrase 'tender of the cows' implies that there are specific cows that are being referred to. Without any context to specify these cows, this is just bad English. The phrase is either badly quoted or it is a bad reference. Check an English grammar.
This follows from this edit; [[1]]
Imc (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- The translation Finder of cattle is erroneous if applied to Krishna. As the first google hit for it is "Cattle Finder is your premier location for selling cattle online." Cattle is not used in this context of translation. 'the finder of the cows' in Bhattacharya 1996 - that can be acceptable since its only selected cows who are cared by Krishna, but "Cattle Finder" is not appropriate and never used as a translation regardless of what dictionary you use, in effect its OR based on /word for word/ or should I say split-a-word translation. Yes, specific cows are the ones Krishna takes care of, not any cattle. MWSD gives govinda=gopendra from Prakrit - a chief herdsman. There should be a careful consideration as to how to translate names of Krishna, they are not just words, and sources should be referred to. Wikidās ॐ 21:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Monier Williams Dictionary translates Gopala just as a "cowherd" [2] and Govinda as herdsman [3] and Both as Krishna.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Aslo Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology and Religion, Geography, History and ... - Page 112 by John Dowson translates it as "cowkeeper". Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English splits Govinda as "cows + master" (cowherd), not finder and Gopala as "protector of cows". [4]. Go thus is translated appropriately as Cows. It might be noted that MWSD translates vinda as to find, get.[5] Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- A cowherd normally herds cattle (that is cows, bullocks or sometimes bulls, and calves); a cowherd only herds cows if all bulls and calves are removed from the herd. Since the sources quoted chose to use the term cow in preference to cattle, I have to agree that this fits Wikipedia's policies. It also illustrates one of Wikipedia's weaknesses in relying on references to deal with other abuses. Imc (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Very beautiful dark skinned man
"very beautiful dark-skinned man during his ... " appears to adequately retell the source but if its not "very" then the point is lost and the statement really should be removed. I dispute if just beautiful dark-skinned man describes the object. He is stunning... at least very beautiful. Wikidās ॐ 19:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if the purpose of quoting sources is to repeat what it says in the sources, complete with superfluous superlatives, then that makes sense. You might find him stunning; that's your opinion. I'm not religious; I don't see any such thing, especially in the idol depictions (such as the Puri images and many murtis) which are just figurative to me. The drawn images are like those of other Hindu gods, all are equally 'very beautiful'. You should also consider the use of English. The word beautiful in English is more often applied to women, the term for men is handsome. Finally Wikidas, while you no doubt enjoyed describing my edits as vandalism, you fail to note the more obvious vandalism that I removed and you re-added. You should worry more about coherent writing. Imc (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
If your religious conviction compels you to pester Wikipedia with eulogies on the God(s) of your choice, you should seriously consider reflecting on the strength and purpose of your faith a little while. And the impression as to the maturity and general sanity of your religious community this will inadvertently evoke in uninvolved bystanders. Religion can be something beautiful. It's just that the actual religionists too often go out of their way to distract from this possibility. I suppose that's the difference between mere adherence and actual faith. --dab (𒁳) 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I quite agree with Dab. I think the problem between IMC and Wikidas is one of ego. Sure, you have opposing viewpoints, and that's sad. Please don't edit-war things out in order to cool your nerves. The best way to solve this is to talk to each other on your personal talk pages until an agreement can be reached. Dab is right: religion is beautiful. So please, don't write here about your problems with over-reverts. Check the 3-revert rule and talk about it on your own pages. Thanks. AparnaBlackPearl14 17:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- No I don't believe the problem is one of ego for either of us, no do we have 'opposite viewpoints'; we have differing viewpoints, but we can usually come to an agreement. Imc (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- if there is no source to this description, it will have to go. It has nothing to my ego. If there are two different sources to the description we can certainly come to an agreement. I think you are quite unreasonable to suggest to check 3RR - there have been no edit wars for a long time, and we are not going to fight over this one for sure... BlackPearl? Wikidās ॐ 21:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Back to the original point - I disagree with Wikidās that a simple added adverb ("very") will cause the point of the statement to be lost completely - there isn't too much difference between "beautiful" and "very beautiful" anyway, as "very" only adds slight emphasis to the adjective that is not that meaningful or necessary. I also agree with Imc that the use of "beautiful" as opposed to "handsome" is inappropriate for describing the subject. I do agree, however, that if there is no source to the description, it will likely have to be removed, since it is a matter of opinion. The current article states "Krishna is often described as a dark-skinned man during his..." which should be an adequate description for the purposes of an encyclopedic article. --Shruti14 t c s 01:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
IS KRISHNA A COUSIN OF THE KAURAVAS?
Granted Krishna is a cousin of the Pandavas - Kunthi is the sister of Vasudevar, the father of Krishna. How come Kauravas be his cousins? Kindly cite references or genealogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VINU (talk • contribs) 05:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Krishna is a "cousin" by extension, as a cousin of the Pandavas, but not an immediate cousin. He is only described as such (by extension) and not as an immediate cousin. --Shruti14 t c s 01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Krishna - new section
The worship of Krishna is part of Vaishnavism, which regards Vishnu as the supreme god and venerates his associated avatars, their consorts, and related saints and teachers. Krishna is especially looked upon as a full manifestation of Vishnu, and as one with Vishnu himself.[1] However the exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu is complex and diverse,[2] where Krishna is considered an independent deity, supreme in its own right.[3]
All Vaishnava traditions recognise Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu; others identify Krishna with Vishnu; while traditions, such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism,[4][5] Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, regard Krishna as the svayam bhagavan, original form of God, or the Lord himself.[6][7][8] [9][10] In the list of the epithets attributed to Krishna, he is described as the 'source of all incarnations' by Rupa Goswami.[11]
This paragraph of the introduction requires an adequate section in the main body of the article explaining the relevant views as per WP:LEAD. As it should be an independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. By the size of the paragraph this issue is probably the most important, thus a prominent section should be created. Wikidās ॐ 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I believe this material should be primarily in the appropriate Vaishnavism categories, with a brief synopsis only here. Imc (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- If the body of the article has a brief synopses, that can be the section that is now the 4th paragraph of the leade. However if the fourth paragraph is retained in the leade, which is more likely to happen, it will require a sizable section. Summary of the lead should be the summary of THIS article, not some 'Vaishnavism categories'. WP:LEAD - summary is... of the sections of this article (did I repeat myself?) .--Wikidās ॐ 21:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I doubt the article needs much more information than what is presented in that paragraph of the lead. I suggest the paragraph be moved to the body of the article, with something like this in the lead: "Krishna is perceived differently within different sects of Hinduism. While all Vaishnava sects recognize him as an avatar of Vishnu, some consider him to be svayam bhagavan, or the original form of the Lord." and maybe a few additional details added to the paragraph if so desired and relevant to the article. --Shruti14 t c s 01:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- ^ John Dowson (2003). Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology and Religion, Geography, History and Literature. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 0-7661-7589-8. p. 361)
- ^ See Beck, Guy, "Introduction" in Beck 2005, pp. 1–18
- ^ Knott 2000, p. 55
- ^ See McDaniel, June, "Folk Vaishnavism and Ṭhākur Pañcāyat: Life and status among village Krishna statues" in Beck 2005, p. 39
- ^ Kennedy, M.T. (1925). The Chaitanya Movement: A Study of the Vaishnavism of Bengal. H. Milford, Oxford university press.
- ^ K. Klostermaier (1997). The Charles Strong Trust Lectures, 1972-1984. Brill Academic Pub. p. 206. ISBN 90-04-07863-0.
For his worshippers he is not an avatara in the usual sense, but svayam bhagavan, the Lord himself.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|other=
ignored (|others=
suggested) (help) p.109 - ^ Delmonico, N., The History Of Indic Monotheism And Modern Chaitanya Vaishnavism in Ekstrand 2004
- ^ De, S.K. (1960). Bengal's contribution to Sanskrit literature & studies in Bengal Vaisnavism. KL Mukhopadhyaya. p. 113: "The Bengal School identifies the Bhagavat with Krishna depicted in the Shrimad-Bhagavata and presents him as its highest personal god."
- ^ Bryant 2007, p. 381
- ^ Goswami 1998, p. 136