Talk:Krishna/Archive 2

Chronology section

The chronology section contains doubtful and vague statements e.g.

"The finding was based on clues in the Vedic literatures. "

What findings? Krishna is not mentioned in the Vedas. Andries 00:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think it should be removed until it can be actually backed up. Dwayne Kirkwood

I also agree that this sentance should be removed, it is a bit vague. 'The date of 3102 BC is generally taken as the date of Krishna's birth by followers of Hinduism.' Or something along those lines may be more appropriate?

"The Vishnu Purana (Book Four, Chapter Twenty-four) establishes that the age of Kali-yuga began when Lord Krishna left this world in 3102 BC" http://www.stephen-knapp.com/sri_krishna.htm

On another note regarding the Vedas, Krishna Himself says in Bhagavad-Gita: BG 2.46: 'All purposes served by a small well can at once be served by a great reservoir of water. Similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who knows the purpose behind them.' GourangaUK 09:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - intro

The intro states "Krishna appears in a number of stories in different cultures and traditions. Sometimes these contradict each other, though there is a common core story that is central to most people's knowledge of Krishna - a pastoral childhood and youth, a celebrated warrior and as the divine incarnation."

Perhaps "it is argued that Krisha appears in a number of stories" would be a more non-exclusive approach?

He does appear in a number of stories however. It's not really 'arguable'. 203.109.146.19

I don't really see the intro as being non NPOV - it may not be worded very well and could be improved, but isn't really saying anything out of place. There are a lot of stories regarding Krishna, and they do sometimes conflict with each other - but within them there will be a number of certain elements of common ground. GourangaUK 08:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, despite the what the tag on the article says, this is not a claim of non - NPOV but of questioning Factual accuracy? Imc 19:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}! "it is argued that Krisha appears in a number of stories" is really horrible. "Krishna appeared in the Kali Yuga" would conceivably be POV. Krishna appearing in stories is about as factual a statement as it can be. dab (ᛏ) 19:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested it instead of replaced it. "Krishna appearing in stories is about as factual a statement as it can be." is stated from a non-NPOV. You might as well be saying, "the reincarnation of Buddha appears in all stories". The point I'm trying to make is that term "Krishna" in and of itself is non-neutral. ays 21:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed: "The immense popularity of Krishna in India also meant that various non-Hindu religions that originated in India had their own versions of him." Badly worded and clearly written with biased intent. ays talk 19:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

albert.so - it was neither badly worded, nor written with biased intent as far I can see. Please explain. Meanwhile I'll reinstate it. Imc 23:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"Lord" = POV

Again, I removed "Lord" from the first image caption. I believe the title "Lord" is not to be used in this article, because it expresses a point of view. In the intro it is clearly stated that Krishna is considered the Supreme Being, that should in my opinion be sufficient. Jesus is not called "Lord" on Wikipedia, so why would Vedic deities be? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop bringing Jesus into this: he is not the same as Krishna. I do not want to make any anti-Christian remarks that might offend anyone, which is why I stay away from that topic on Wikipedia, so I would appreciate not having to discuss Jesus while debating an entirely unrelated issue. "Lord Jesus" is nowhere near as common in Christian circles as "Sri Krishna" is in Vaishnava circles. The article only refer to Krishna by the noun "Lord" (which would indeed be totally unacceptable) when it has been vandalised. elvenscout742 21:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure Jesus is not the same as Krishna, but that's not my point. They're both considered God, and addressed as "Lord", be it in different circles. However, Wikipedia belongs to neither Christian, nor Vaishnava circles, but is supposed to be a neutral source of information, and not a place of veneration. Therefore, general usage in Vaishnava literature does not apply to this encyclopaedia. I don't see the difference between calling Krishna "Lord Krishna", or referring to him plainly as "Lord", it's the same to me. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 06:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

'Divine' Mushrooms

The new addition to Krishna's names makes a lot of sweeping generalisations about the blue colour in addition to other things. Krishna's blueness is due to his association with Vishnu. It has nothing to do with cows. Vishnu association with the sky for its all encompassing nature is also well-known. Arjuna did not have his vison in a dark room and Soma's asccociation with the mushroom is not the most favoured one. The plant ephedra is more commanly accepted. As for the psychedleic origins of all world religions it is mere speculation and must hence go from this site. There are no 'strong indications' on any of aspect of this theory.

I agree this is unfounded, and without precise citation should be removed as OR. dab (ᛏ) 11:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

cut from the article:

Recently experts in the field of [ethnomycology] like Terence McKenna have suggested that the bluish color refers to the Psilocybe mushroom, which turns blue when bruised or dried in the Sun. Like the divine cowherdboy Krishna, the Psilocybe mushrooms can always be found in the presence of cows, because this particular mushroom grows on cow dung. Ingestion of 4 to 7 grams of dried Psilocybe mushrooms in silence and darkness generates an intense mystical experience, described as being entheogenic ("that which generates the experience of God within"), which can be similar to Arjuna's vision of Krishna's Universal Form (see painting below). Like the Vedic Soma beverage, which was made from another mushroom, most probably the Fly Agaric, the Psilocybe mushroom has been used by shamans throughout the world and throughout history for religious purposes. Although at present followers of Krishna or the Vedas in general do not use psychoactive substances (although some sects smoke marihuana) there are strong indications that these religions (including those of the Middle East) have a psychedelic origin.

File:Giridhari1.jpg

The above picture shows Krishna as Giridhari, lifter of the Govardhana Hill. One day Krishna, still a child, discouraged his father and the village elders from worshiping the raingod Indra, who is ritually offered the Soma beverage, and instead worship the Godvardhana Hill, from which the villagers derived all they needed. They agreed to this proposal, but Indra became angry and flooded the cowherd community with continuous torrents of rain. To save the cows and his community, Krishna lifted the hill with His little finger, and all his friends and family members took shelter underneath this giant umbrella. One can clearly see the mushroom symbolism here. Mushrooms appear especially after the soil has been moistened by rain. As said before, the stem of the Psilocybe mushroom tends to turn blue when picked, and its favorite place is cow dung. On the above painting all these elements are present, with the hill being the cap of the mushroom. This story actually suggests that the use of the Fly Agaric (Soma, which was first offered to Indra, then taken by the priests) was historically replaced by the use of the Psilocybe Cubensis, which unlike the Fly Agaric prefers open grasslands, just like Krishna's Vrajabhumi.

If this can all be precisely attributed to McKenna, there can be a "mycological hypothesis" section. This stuff certainly doesn't belong in the "name" section, however. dab (ᛏ) 11:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments and have removed the recent re-addition, for further discussion and comment. Also, I would say that IMO this possible connection to psilocybe and Amanita is probably better placed in a separate article. Imc 12:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, move the detailed discussion to e.g. ethnomycology. I would then support a reference to that discussion from here in a short phrase. dab (ᛏ) 13:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Temples

I removed the following section from the article. As a very partial list of the numerous temples of Krishna, and without adequate links, it seems to be of minimal value as it is. A more thorough list with links could however perhaps form a linked page .

==Temples Devoted to Krishna ==

• Udupi Sri Krishna
• Guruvayur
• Parthasarathy, Chennai
• Jagannatha Puri, Orissa
• Shrinathji, Nathdwara Rajasthan

Imc 09:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: Historicity

This article makes assumptions about Krishna's historicity. I haven't yet seen any acceptable evidence that Krishna was in fact a real person. Quoting from the article:

1. Astrological evidence suggests Krishna was born earlier than 3102 BCE. - implicit assumption here
2. In the absence of any historical biography, this summary is based on the Mahabharata, the Harivamsa, the Bhagavata Purana and the Vishnu Purana - another implicit assumption - you can't expect a biography for a myth.
3. The place of his birth is now known as Krishnajanmabhoomi - again, mistakes a claim for a fact

Kingsleyj 00:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

He is just a real as christ is to christian! There is no evidence for his existence, just the fact that xians believe in him, it's the same thing.

Hello Kingsley - There is much evidence to suggest Krishna historicity, (as much as you can ever prove the reality of a person who lived 5000 years ago) although maybe it is not all included in this article. To take your points:

• Astrological evidence is always just that, astrological. It's not a proof of any factual history from a standard perspective. But I would argue it's still relevant to the article.
• That the scriptures you quote are 'mythical' is as POV as saying they are 'factual', rather the article should show clearly they are from scriptural references, and let the reader decide for themselves on their validity as such (or not).
• I agree this statement is incorrect and will amend it.

Best Wishes, GourangaUK 10:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Gouranga,

1. If there is much evidence I don't see it cited or referenced. The page should at least make it clear that there are differing opinions on the historicity of Krishna - that most Hindus believe Krishna to be a historic figure, but most historians do not. See the page on Jesus and the Historicity of Jesus for the kind of treatment that I think is relevant here. It also has similar statements about *astronomical* events mentioned in the bible texts, but does it without calling it evidence or proof.
2. How about rephrasing that to "This summary is based on the Mahabharata, the Harivamsa, the Bhagavata Purana and the Vishnu Purana" and let's drop the assumption about the historicity ?

Kingsleyj 04:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kingsley - You are correct that there are many differing opinions over Krishna and statements should not be offered as factual it they cannot be proved as such. I have amended the article where I could see any statements of this type - including the one you mention above. If there's any I have missed then please point them out. If you are genuinely interested in finding more about the evidence of Krishna's existence I would personally recommend the following book:

• http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0961976357/026-3659328-0376408

Regards, GourangaUK 10:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Gouranga! - Kingsley2.com 23:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't yet seen any acceptable evidence that Jesus was in fact a real person.--Dangerous-Boy 19:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

ME NEITHER!

Who said Jesus was historical? There is a huge debate surrounding this, vide Historicity of Jesus. That Jesus is as real to X-ians as Krishna to V-ites is beside the point, that's a matter of faith and beyond debate. However, I don't see anything resembling a Historicity of Krishna debate here. That the scriptures are mythical is a fact, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that they may be based on a historical character. Such a character, viz. a Mathura prince turned hermit after a life of heroic warfare, could have lived anytime between 1200 and 600 BC, but most certainly not in 3100 BC (when the area of what was to become Mathura was still well in the Neolithic). Quite apart from all that, the point is purely and simply that this article is making claims without citing its sources. I have no doubt you can find a host of authors hyping the 3102 BC date, but you have to cite them, you can't just say "it is so". dab (ᛏ) 23:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello dab - That the scriptures are mythical is a fact. You can't say that isn't a POV. But I agree with you that statements should cite their sources - especially when it comes to dates. GourangaUK 11:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

you seem to be labouring under the common misapprehension that "mythological" entails "non-factual". A myth is rather a story that is of vital importance to a certain community (regardless of its factuality), which is certainly the case here (unless you want to argue that Vaishnavites are a neglegible and disparate quantity, or that most Vaishnavites dismiss the Krishna story as an irrelevant fable). It is certainly a POV that the Krishna story is central to Vaishnavism, but I assume one that you share, and one for which it would be difficult to cite dissent. See also mythology. dab (ᛏ) 14:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In that sense of the word 'myth' I would agree with you it is not POV, but not in the common usage. I'm a commoner at heart. GourangaUK 15:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

be that as it may :) the upshot is that we agree that we need citations for things like 3102 BC, and that was really my whole point. cheers, dab (ᛏ) 20:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed link to pirate site

The external link for "Srimad Bhagavatam - The Story of the Fortunate One" led to a site, bhagavata.org, that knowingly and persistently bootlegs copyrighted artwork and book-length copyrighted text.

Once you get into the actual content of the site (at www.bhagavata.org/contents.html), virtually every chapter features a large painting bootlegged from the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. And, as the site says, also included is "the original translation of Swami Prabhupada and other pupils" (which the site does not have permission to use).

Further information is available from the rights and permissions department of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, www.bbt.info.

The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Wikipedia:Copyrights, in Section 4.3, "Linking to copyrighted works."

O Govinda 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Krisna--Mahabharata Vs Purana

This article says Krshna's birth account in Purana Matches with that in Mahabharata.I don't know who has written this but Mahabharata has not given any account of his birth.Lately in his revelations in Bhagwad Gita ,He says--I am born from water or I arise from water.The dubious sounding statement should be removed.08:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Holywarrior 08:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In Bhagavad Gita Krishna says "I am the taste in Water", but He does not refer to his 'birth' from water in any of the versions I've ever read? The story of Krishna's birth is given in detail in the Bhagavata Purana, whereas the Mahabharata deals mostly with His pastimes in later life. I'm not sure if Krishna's appearance is dealt with in any detail in the earlier chapters of full versions of Mahabharata (some concise versions miss parts out)- I would advise that it would have to be checked upon before deleting anything. GourangaUK 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Gouranga Bhagwad Gita does not have many versions,yes analysis and translations do come in many ways.I challenge you to come up with Krishna says "I am the taste in Water", in any version you have read(or even plan to read).Mahabharata does not deal with his pastimes,rather it deals with very serious aspect of life.Puranas are nothing but storytelling pastimes of Brahmanas(mostly illiterate).Most ancient and authentic source is Mahabharata which has not given any account of his birth.All the sources you are quoting had been created much later,many during mediaval era .Scholars have toiled to find references of Krishna in Mahabharata and you say --Many concise version miss out-- does not sound credible.In Bhagwad Gita Krishna categoricaly says--They are the Fools who think I am born like other human beings,infact I am born of water.verse and chapter no I will quote very soon.Meanwhile I want citation from your side about taste in water.Holywarrior 07:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Holywarrior, I will happily supply the quotation I mentioned, which I must add is by no means restricted to this one translation - it is in many versions.

• "O son of Kunti, I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man." (Chapter 7, Text 8) Ref 7.8

I will also happily supply the full quotation of the verse you gave:

• "Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be." (Chapter 9, Text 11) Ref 9.11

Your heavily opinionated views on the Puranas are certainly not welcomed in this encyclopedic article. Krishna is mentioned in detail on a large number occassions in the Mahabharata, and is essential to the storyline. To say otherwise seem to me to be ridiculous. His childhood pastimes may not be there in detail, but Krishna's later life most certainly is. GourangaUK 09:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gouranga .The Translation you have supplied is faulty .I don't want to contest the analysis but at one place I have found in the same link Gayatri Mantra mistaken for month.Rasoham is a single word in sanskrit which may be broken in many ways one of the way is what you supplied.The material fact here is that it comes before Kaunteya.One other interpretation is ra+soham+apsu.Ra and Apsu are two places in the human body.Soham is the integrating string of kriya yoga.It also means to connect Mooladhara with sashrara with soham.Of course apsu means water but there are many connotations of the term.Rasoham Apsu means I dwell in water too.However the verse I have cited is different from these two and comes in the exact way I have quoted.I make no claim till i furnish you the exact citation.But You have misappropriated what you percieve as your victory to conclude that I have opinionated against Puranas. Puranas are full of anomalies and are not regarded as reliable source.Besides Article does try to give the false impression that accounts are same in Purana and Mahabharata.Holywarrior 07:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I see little point in any further debate as you are already so certain you are right. This is a discussion page, not a battle ground for our egos, so why speak of 'victory'?. Both the Bhagavad Gita translations quoted and the Puranans are more than strong enough to withstand such trivial arguments. I will however re-word the sentance regarding the Puranas as I agree it is not technically correct GourangaUK 14:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

3100 BC

working on Mahabharata, I came across the claim that the 3100 BC date was calculated by Aryabhata in the 5th century. I suppose that this information needs to be sourced in turn, but I think that's a highly credible origin of the 3100 figure. dab (ᛏ) 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have come across this statement which gives a very similar figure

• Mr. G.S. Sampath Iyengar and Mr. G.S. Sheshagiri have fixed the birth-date of Krishna as 27th July 3112 BC. 'The horoscope shows Lagna and Moon 52 deg. 15' Rohini, Jupiter 91 deg. 16' Punarvasu, Sun 148 deg. 15' Uttara Phalguni, Mercury 172 deg. 35' Hasta, Venus 180 deg. 15' Chitra, Saturn 209 deg. .57' Vishakha, Mars 270 deg. 1' Uttara Ashadha Rahu, 160 deg. 1'.

It's from hindunet.org. Is this good enough to add in as a reference? GourangaUK 12:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Mr. G.S. Sampath Iyengar and Mr. G.S. Sheshagiri" seems to refer to some publication, which it should be possible to find with google. Then at least we'll have a source. Apparently, the whole thing is based on Krishna's horoscope, I assume as given in the Harivamsha? Our final statement would then read something like "based on the horoscope as given in Harivamsha X.Y.Z, Iyengar and Sheshagiri (19xx) have calculated a birth date of Krishna of 27th July 3112 BC". We just need to fill in the X.Y.Z and the 19xx now. Of course, your own link contains the claim that the horoscope is "forged" (others would simply say "fictional"), apparently trying to argue for a 6th millennium date (what's three millennia between friends? It's "Neolithic Krishna" either way :) dab (ᛏ) 17:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems this date (3112 BC) occurs quite commonly in connection with Krishna's horoscope and calculations concerning the lunar eclipse during the Mahabharat war. I still havn't found a primary reference, but the below is another related link (the best I came across). The 6th millennium date appears mostly in identical versions of the same article already given.

• A Tribute to Hinduism - Dwarka

Best Wishes, GourangaUK 20:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Krishna, the All-Attractive

The translation of the name Krishna as "The-All-Attractive" can be found in the most translations of the Bhagavad-Gita and also many other books belonging to god Krishna.

The name Krishna comes from the sanskrit word krish, in the meaning of "attract". A word can have different meanings in the different sciences. If the definition of a word ist used many times in literature it will be accepted in the dictionaries after some time. The dictionaries contain the definitions of spoken words in life or written words in literature. In the most common literature Krishna is translated as "The All Attractive Krishna". Planetreal 21:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

there is a root kRS "to drag, to tear". Connection of kRSNa "black" with this root is 100% popular etymology. We can mention that AC Prabhupada or whoever forwarded this "translation", but it is not, in any sense, a literal translation of the term. kRSNa means "black, dark" etc., period. dab (ᛏ) 23:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Guest: Is it simply the nature of the name KRSNa that this particular name is the most powerful? PrabhupAda: Yes. God... God's name is according to His action, God's name. Just like KRSNa. This "KRSNa" name is given... That is explained also. kRSir bhU-vAcakaH zabdo Naz ca nirvRti-vAcakaH tayor aikyaM paraM brahma kRSNa ity abhidhIyate KRSNa's name... KRS means to become, to appear. BhU-vAcakaH. Or attraction. We have got attraction for material enjoying, and Naz ca nirvRti-vAcakaH. Na means Ananda. Another meaning is negation. So "the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who, by His attractive features, by attraction of His bodily beauty, by attraction of His opulence, by attraction of His pastimes, so many things..." KRSNa is all-attractive. And one who is all-attractive, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is the meaning of "KRSNa."

Found this on the web, apparently it's from a lecture, can someone check Vedabase to see if it's valid? Dwayne Kirkwood 23:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

These words are in Vedabase, and are from the Chaitanya Charitamrita. It is already quoted in the article, and is presumably the interpretation of Kaviraja it (e.g. see http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/9/30/en ). It says, as a footnote to the passage, that it is from the Udyogaparva 71-4, Other translations of the Mahabharata have different interpretations of this passage. Try this one, Kisan Mohan Ganguli's translation at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05070.htm (which numbers it Udyogaparva 70)

he is called Krishna because he uniteth in himself what are implied by the two words Krishi which signifieth 'what existeth' and na which signifieth 'eternal peace'.

Imc 09:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

citing this should be unproblematical. These medieval texts are very fond of etymological speculation, and they are of course perfecly notable, so it is alright to report them. They should just be reported for what they are, etymological musings of specific authors, and not for 'actual' translations. There is a difference between a translation and an interpretation. We are well within the realm of interpretation here. dab (ᛏ) 13:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

Hey, I've taken a shot at cleaning the article up a bit, because realistically compared to other pages of this length, it's a bit of a mess and really needs some organisation. I have setup a sandbox enviroment for cleaning-up, please check out the changes and if you feel that you can help revise and clean-up more, please do so. I plan to move this new version across within a few days provided there is no reason given not to. Dwayne Kirkwood 10:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. I have a little cavil, this rewritten passage

The lilas of Krishna, with their expressions of personal love that transcend the boundaries of formal reverence, serve as a counterpoint to the lilas of another avatar of Vishnu: Rama,

with the idea that Rama has "lilas". I suspect that only in a Gaudiya tradition would it be considered that the word lila could be applied to the serious and formal personage of Rama. I prefer the former text.

Imc 10:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea of "Rama-lila" is extremely common in India and transcends Hindu sectarian affiliations. To illustrate:

"NEW DELHI, OCT. 15. The script and storyline remain the same; only, the staging has gone hi-tech. The ten-day-long Ramlilas that began across the Capital on Thursday not only tell the story of Ram and Sita from the epic Ramcharitmanas but also give a glimpse of the country's emerging position in the field of computer software and information technology." --The Hindu (a mainline newspaper), October 16, 2004

In fact, a major place for mass gatherings in New Delhi is known as the "Ram Lila grounds":

"In June, 2001 AICSSO leaders announced that 1 million Dalits would quit Hinduism for Buddhism with a rally to be held on Oct. 14th, 2001. When that date for New Delhi’s Ram Lila grounds was unavailable, the rally was rescheduled for Nov. 4th." Hindu Rally in India

It's really okay.

Respectfully, O Govinda 18:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the term is obviously in use. But it does not mean the play of Rama, as it does in the corresponding context for Krishna. It means a play about Rama, a completely different thing. For instance, Ram Lila, the enactment of the story of Lord Rama is believed to have been started by great Saint Tulsidas. (this copied from [1]) Imc 12:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The term can certainly mean "a play about Rama." But it can also most definitely mean "Rama's lila"--that is, "the activities of Rama's life." As shown by the following examples (none of them Gaudiya):

Sri Rama Lila : The Story of the Lord's incarnation as Sri Rama/Vanamali. New Delhi, 2000, xxviii, 275 p., photos, ISBN 81-7305-180-1. [2]

"Although very busy at the ashram, Vanamali makes time to write. Sri Devi Lila — The Play of The Divine Mother [--] is the fourth in the Lila (Play of God) series. The first three were entitled Sri Krishna Lila, Sri Rama Lila and Sri Shiva Lila." [3]

Although Sri Rama & Parashurama are different incarnation of same Sri Hari, at that time Sri Rama has shown his play (lila) by winning the war. [4]

He achieved a childlike ecstasy, a divine innocence in which the whole of life became the lila (play) of Lord Rama. [5]

Tulsidas describes the lila play of Rama as a child. [6] ("Play" here is intended to be parenthetical.)

Sri Ramakrishna continued: "It is also true that after the vision of God the devotee desires to witness His lila. After the destruction of Ravana at Rama's hands, Nikasha, Ravana's mother, began to run away for fear of her life. . . . Nikasha answered: 'O Rama, I am able to witness all this lila of Yours because I am still alive.' [7]

Enough?

Respectfully, O Govinda 05:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In light of such strong evidences I have amended the paragraph regarding Lilas. Best Wishes, ys GourangaUK 10:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is a little wrong

I believe in Krishn...But its unfair to say that he was the "highest god"....Hinduism doesnt believe in more then one power, or god if you will....They believe in a supreme energy, power, god, that has no true from that can be understood by man....and so u cant say one god is higher or better then the other...Krishna was the human form of god coming down to earth.....THis article sounds like it was made from somebody out of the Hari Krishn temple....I dont mean to be disrespectful...But its technically wrong 71.107.54.199 05:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your point of view. The article says that in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, he is the origin of all other incarnations, and that in the Bhagavad-gita (e.g., 10.15 and 15.19), he is seen as the Supreme Person and the highest God. In relation to Hinduism, well, you'll only find that word used once in the entire article. If you want to add your point of view, go ahead, but make sure you cite sources so that your statements are verifiable. Chopper Dave 10:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Objection to removal of my link

I object to the removal of the link to my Universalist Church of Radha Krishna when you have links to ISKCON and Gaudiya Math. Why the discrimination? Subal Das 05:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Chronology Section (2)

I think this section is too speculative and, irrespective of the factual correctness of its claims, is based on sources that do not seem reliable to me (by sources, I mean the talk presented by Swami Gyananand Saraswati, not IANS or Yahoo news) and hence detracts from the credibility of the overall article. Here are my reasons for proposing that the section should be removed:

• The talk given the Swami Gyananand Saraswati is AFAIK not peer reviewed and as such represents the opinions of just one person which has not been tested, accepted or even acknowledged by the wider religious/academic research community. Even the Yahoo news item is written in the News of the Weird tone. Sentences such as "He fed the data into a computer and used a special software" (unless they are backed up by a substantively detailed scholarly article) do not inspire confidence.
• Wikipedia guidelines do state that, "In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs". However the claim being made in the section are not religious claims, but claims about "Historic Krishna". As such, they need to be supported by peer-reviewed academic citations, and given the claimed exactitude of the estimates the sources need to be gold-plated!

Therefore I think everything between "A paper presented ... horoscope charts)." should be simply deleted. I am not sure whether the remaining sentences are based on primary sources, secondary sources or extrapolated from the Yahoo article. If they are to be retained, these sentences can be moved to the "The life of Krishna" section where they are a better fit anyway. Abecedare 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Abecedare, I agree with your clearly given arguments and have moved the text into the "Later Life" section where it seems more appropriate. I did not want to loose all of the text, even if it is a bit shakey because nothing else in the article gave any detail concerning the timeline of Krishna's leaving. What's left still requires citations and clean-up. With a bit of time we could probably find much better references concerning the dates etc... Thank you for your patience. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not studied this question much and so please take my observations as those of a curious bystander to this interesting question. I have noticed that on other Wikipedia articles a similar debate take places in which one perspective presents a religious view based on certain sources and another perspective presents an academic view based on different sources. A similar difference in views could arise here. The deep feeling which the personage of Lord Krishna evokes is the issue. In Western academic study, an example of a more detatched view is given by A. L. Basham in The Wonder That Was India (Grove Press: New York, 1954). Basham's book is not very current, but it used to be a standard text for the archaeological protohistory issues. I am sure that more recent work has improved on his summary of the historicity of the Krishna stories, which he covers on pp. 303-306. In Basham's line of thinking the best question is not "When was Krishna born?" but "How did the figure of Krishna as given in Hindu scripture develop?" (not direct quotes by the way) He points out that the figure as we see him in Hindu scripture may be a composite which contains a number of themes, each of which can be traced independently. He notes parallels between some elements that are seen elsewhere in cross-cultural comparisons of Indo-European myth. He suggests that the pastoral and erotic aspects (such as interactions with the Gopi girls) may represent a confluence of a separate mythic line entirely, not stemming from the same roots as the heroic myths. A third element of the Krishna stories is the myth of the child god, which Bashham believes was the last line to be assimilated to the composite. (I have summarized all of this to such a degree that perhaps Basham would fail me in his class.) I do not know if any of this is true, and do not seek to challenge those who hold other beliefs. I am just noting that there is a very different perspective taken by academics who apply these types of comparative analysis. For a parallel debate that is going on now see the talk pages for Asvamedha. In matters of faith it is essential that we show respect for all views. In the Bhagavad Gita Lord Krishna himself tells us "Neither the hosts of Devas nor the great Rishis know my origin". (BG 10.2) In matters of living faith we must always show respect for both bhakta and jnani approaches. Buddhipriya 17:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

At risk of offending some, I am moving this statement here pending more editorial discussion on how to re-incorporate the issues into the main article.

According to recent calculations, Krishna's birth date has been approximately calculated to be 3228 B.C.E.[8].

Buddhipriya 17:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Here is another section which some would dispute.

According to references in the Bhagavata Purana and Bhagavad Gita it has been interpreted that Krishna left the earth around 3100 BCE .This is based on the desecription of Krishna's leaving Dwarka thirty-six years after the Battle of the Mahabharata. The Matsya Purana says that Krishna was eighty-nine years old when the battle was fought. Thereafter Pandavas ruled for a period of thirty-six years, their rule was in the beginning of the Kali Yuga. It further says that the Kali Yuga began on the day Duryodhana was felled to ground by Bhima meaning that the year 2007 would equate to the year 5108 (or similar) of the current Kali Yuga

Buddhipriya 17:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem in including a number of viewpoints in the article as long as they are significant and referenced. The above dating is obviously significant, as a large number of people ascribe to it, especially those who worship Krishna as the Supreme Person, or as an avatar of Vishnu. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 09:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think there is no problem presenting both the religious scholar view and the historian/academic's view; as long as we can cite and ascribe the view to a reliable source (Note: By reliable, here, I don't mean that the source is correct). Here are two suggestions I have:

• Academic/historic views should be given more weightage if we relate an event in Krishna's life to a specific calendar year (e.g. Krishna was born in 3102 BCE). The source Gournaga dug up should be useful for this [9] along with Basham's text.
• Scriptural and religious scholars are more relevant when the article talks about the timeline within Krishna's life (e.g. Krishna was 36 year old when ...).
• We should be very careful that we don't synthesize information from the above two sources/paradigms.
• If a particular claim is possibly arguable, we should be ascribe it to the particular source, i.e. phrase it as "X says that Krishna was born in Tokyo" rather than "Recent research says that ..." or "Hindu scriptures have been interpreted to show that ..." so that the reader knows and can decide the credibility of the source. Of course, outright marginal views, need not should not even be included.

I realize that we won't get the sections to the desired level of content and sourcing overnight. But with multiple editors paying attention to the article, it is certain to improve ! In the meantime, as Gouranaga pointed out, we should make sure that we don't lose content, which we may find to be needed later - so for now it may be better to rephrase disputed content or move it here, rather than delete it outright.

An aside: I don't think the Ashvamedha dispute is the correct comparison here; in that case the varying interpretations differ so widely that people at one end of the spectrum find the other interpretations insulting; while those at the other end think the "modern" interpretations are fanciful. Here, on the other hand, the editors basically all agree on the existence and validity of the different viewpoints and the discussion is only with regards to the best way to present and source the information. That should make editing the Krishna article more productive and less stressful ! :-) Abecedare 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with all of the points which Abecedare and Gouranga make above. It is essential that we be respectful of matters of living faith, while at the same time presenting the academic viewpoint. Similar problems arise for Jesus and I have been reading that article with interest as a possible model on how to organize differing views in a respectful and balanced approach. For statements that can be debated I personally like the style of citing sources in text, with dropped footnotes, such as: "John Doe, in his book on Area 51, says that dozens of alien bodies were recovered."<noowiki></nowiki> I am currently sorting out conflicting references on the date of Ganesha's birthday, by the way. He has two different dates that are used (I think he has done this just because he likes cake so much). Let me check on what I moved and I will self-revert the changes pending more work on this by you both. Buddhipriya 17:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few more alterations today - thanks to all for your comments and help. Gouranga(UK) 12:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Krishna being removed from Category:Bahá'í prophets

why was he removed from this category krishna is considered in the Bahá'í religion--Jesusmyth 03:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It was removed by an anon who appeared to be a Hindu Zealot. Probably just trying to keep Krishna from being shared by other religions. Nothing to worry about. Zazaban 03:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the category (check the edits) because I felt (and still feel) that to categorise Krishna as a 'Bahai Prophet' is innacurate, and potentially against WP:NPOV. Surely a Bahai Prophet would be someone who promoted the Bahai faith specifically, otherwise it becomes a universal tag without any actual meaning? To categorise Krishna as a person venerated in the Bahai Faith would be more accurate in this instance in my opinion. Regards, ys, Gouranga(UK) 10:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, you're right. Baha'is consider Krishna a Manifestation of God, not a prophet. I have put the category up for deletion. Regards -- Jeff3000 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeff3000 he is considered a prophet a manifestation of god is a title pretty much meaning a major prophet--Java7837 22:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just deity??

Krishna isn't just a deity like Shiva or Zeus. Many people believe he was also a man that the myths are based off. Isn't it hypocritical to say he didn't exist and say Jesus existed? Both Jesus and Krishna are mythical figures, but it doesn't mean they didn't exist. This whole article seems somewhat bias toward the Krishna as only fictional? Zachorious 04:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is particular positioned to have a NPOV. Though I agree the old title was better, it could be seen as bias by the eyes of most of the western world. Chopper Dave 04:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that saying Krishna is a Deity disqualified him from also being an historical or 'actual' personality? 'Deity' covers both gods and God angles and is a factual statement in regards to how Krishna is treated within Hinduism. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 11:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Earliest sources

The statement that

However there are many references to his names in the most ancient of Indian texts such as the Rig-Veda and other Vedas

is somewhat contradicted by the later statement that the first clear reference is in the Chandyoga. (under Early Historical References). Since names can be reused, and krishna also means black, if the vedic references don't clearly refer to him, they are arguably irrelevant. Sometimes works such as the Chandyoga are included with the Vedas, but in this context just adds to confusion. Imc 10:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Imc, I have removed the sentence, based on your logic above. A knowledgable source tells me that there is one verse in the Rig Veda describing a special cow-herd boy which according to some schools, alludes to Krishna, but there is no direct reference:

"I saw a boy who appeared in the dynasty of cowherds. He is infallible and is never annihilated. He wanders on various paths, sometimes near and sometimes very far. Sometimes He is beautifully adorned with varieties of garments, and sometimes He wears cloth of only one color. In this way, He repeatedly exhibits His manifest and unmanifest pastimes." (1.164.31)

There are direct quotes from the Krishna Upanishad listed here, that might be useful in the article.

"Lord Krishna is the color of a new rain cloud, therefore He is compared to a transcendental cloud full of eternity, bliss and cognizance. He is the original and supreme person. He is the origin of all activities and the one and only Lord of all. He is the worshipful Lord of the best of demigods, the controller of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Krishna is without any beginning. Whatever auspiciousness is found within or beyond this universe the devotee obtains in Krishna alone" (Krishna Upanishad)

Regards, Gouranga(UK) 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gouranga. First, I'll state my understanding of the distinction between the Vedas and the Upanishads. The Vedas proper are the original and oldest texts. Many of the upanishads are commentaries on, or otherwise associated with the Vedas, and all can be assumed to be later than the Vedas. Because they are related to the vedas, they are often appended to them, and some people then treat them as part of the vedas. However, it should not be assumed from this that they are part of the original text.

I don't know anything about Krishna upanishad, except that it is not one of the 11 upanishads of Sankara. Is there any information on its dating? Note that Stephen Knapp (at your reference, given above) seems to treat it as an associated with the Rigveda, and Wikipedia's Upanishad article lists it as associated with the Atharvaveda. Are they talking about the same work? There might be more confusion to resolve before it can used here.

For the verse 1.164.31 from the Rigveda, here is another translation at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01164.htm

I saw the Herdsman, him who never stumbles, approaching by his pathways and departing.

He, clothed with gathered and diffusive splendour, within the worlds continually travels.

The preceding and later verses of this also do not make any possible connection to Krishna any clearer. I think that all you could reasonably say from this is that in ancient India, since it was to a large extent a pastoral society, herdsmen would have been important. Thanks. Imc 10:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Flute or Bansuri

A Bansuri is just one kind of flute. Usually, flute includes all kinds, but is commonly understood to be the western concert version. I think it may be misleading to link Bansuri and then call it a flute. s1 14:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems too distracting to get into that kind of detail in the introduction. Either we could remove the wikilink altogether, or personally I don't see a problem in linking to bansuri as that is the specific type of flute that is meant for anyone who wants to investigate further? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 19:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Krishna in Mahabharata

Some imp facts from the epic about Krishna are missing in the article:
1. Krishna helping Draupadi at cheer-haran
2. Krishna sent as envoy to Kauravas
3. Krishna's relationship with Kunti, Pandavas, Arjuna in particular as mentor
Please tell me ur views. I will work on this topic in the dayz to come.--Redtigerxyz 14:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The current article is a good overview of the literature on Krishna and his worship, and it also a good length as well. There is obviously a very great deal that it summarises, and obviously, it is not all of the same scope and importance. Since the topics you mention depend on the relationship between Krishna and the Pandava, it has a common subject already. I suggest that it be written as a separate article, which could be linked from the current one. The 'mentor to Arjuna' bit is relevant to the Bhagavad Gita article as well. Imc 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hindu belief

Hindu Belief

I mentioned that Hindus believe Krishna lived in India thousands of years ago - and some users keep deleting my edits. I wonder why? I am a born and raised and practising Hindu - why do I need to give research proof what Hindus believe.

Umesh (Jaipurschool 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

Umesh, Please see wikipedia's policy on verifiability which requires that any significant fact in an article be backed-up by a reliable published source. Abecedare 23:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image change

I believe that a modern image of Krishna should be placed, I think so the one in which he plays the flute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donrub (talk • contribs) 07:25, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

A Good Resource of Articles

I came across many good articles on Hinduism as general on a website. Hindu Dharma

This site has a series of intersting article about Lord Krishna. It covers various concepts in depth and provides very good imformation about Lord Krishna. e.g. Why is Lord Krushna considered an 'Absolute Incarnation'?, Why is Lord Rama known as Maryadapurushottam and Lord Krushna as Purnapurushottam? etc.

Those are available on this page: Lord Krishna Should we include them in external links?

Any comments? Simpledevotion 16:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Krishna Radha Relationship

This aspect is not discussed in this article. Actually many have misinterpreted about Radha-Krsihna reltionship. One need to understand that at age of ten Lord Krishna left Vrundavan and slayed Kansa. Janmastami : Janma-Leela of Lord Krishna

And when Krishna left Gokul permanently He was only seven years old. What is the real relationship between Radha-Krushna ?

Can someone write about this aspect? Simpledevotion 13:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

His, not his, He/Him, not he/him

Could someone please change the pronouns to reflect the fact that Lord Krishna is the Avatar of, and therefore, God. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.54.134 (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Krishna as the Supreme God in Vaishnavism

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Wikidās ॐ 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the opinion of Sri Vaishnavas:

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

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

My take:

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

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

The following statement is not correct:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Note - many traditions see Vishnu and Narayana as one and the same, with neither being an avatar of the other, but with both being names of the same.] --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just an introduction to the whole article. We should keep the things as simple as possible, because 90 % of the people who are going to read it probably never even heard of Vaishnavism, but certainly do have an idea what Hinduism is. And it's important to make people understand, that for Vaishnavas, who are the majority of all Hindus, Krishna is not on the same level as Indra, Brahma, etc. The theological subtleties of every tradition can be disscused later in the article.Gaura79 (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a separate section dedicated to an Avatara theology of Krishna could just do it?

I actually do not mind the following then:

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

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

Wikidās ॐ 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The one problem with that phrasing is that it is saying two individuals are the singular Supreme God, which is likely to confuse people. We're supposed to structure all of our content so that those who don't know the subject can readily understand it. Maybe something like, "The exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu, particularly regarding which is "primary" to the other, is one of the more frequently discussed issues in the Vaishnava branch of Hinduism," would be enough for the lead, with the rest of the material following in the appropriate section. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the phrase The exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu, particularly regarding which is "primary" to the other, is one of the more frequently discussed issues in the Vaishnava branch of Hinduism, however its only in the recent years that such lack the traditional (territorial) separation that has prompted this discussion. Gaudiya are expanding rapidly in about 4 of 5 different groups and actually hardly debate, because, according to them there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that Krishna is an avatara of Vishnu and then say BUT he is original. See for example: http://www.romapadaswami.com/?q=node/2554 - we hardly debate this point - besides as of here and that is mainly with our friend User:Zeuspitar. We normally debate with those who say that Krishna is covered by maya. Wikidās ॐ

The "The exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu, particularly regarding which is "primary" to the other, is one of the more frequently discussed issues in the Vaishnava branch of Hinduism," phrase is one I like as well. I also support a separate section on views of Krishna and I think this might actually make a good start to the paragraph if we have one. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas mentioned; that "Vishnu is an avatara of Narayan"....just like Shruti said...Vishnu/Narayana are the SAME name of God, this gives new meaning to what wikidas said "What we see is that some do not know their own traditions and other do not respect other traditions".. He also said that "3 out of 5 traditions" believe in Krishna. Again, I have stated many times...it is NOT a numbers game. First was the Sri Sampradayam, then Madhvacharya broke off, then all the other broke off through the centuries. The later groups believe in Krishna, because they believe in the later books;itihasas, puranas, inner group books like the caitanya caram. By the older groups, because they follow the older scriptures...say that Vishnu/Narayana is first. Older Scriptures/Vishnu. New books/Krishna. Rig Veda and Main Upanishads/Vishnu-Narayana. New Upanishads, mis-quoted verses from Bhagavata Purana and inner group books/Krishna. Rig Veda-Shruti-Vishnu. Bhagavata purana verse-Krishna. Older scripture/Vishnu. Or, newer books/Krishna. Shruti14 and others, please remember this when others talk about "3 out of 5" thing again please.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As for "our friend zeuspitar", if it wasnt for me, ALOT of the Hindu related pages would be ISKCON dominated; Shruti14 and many others also have said the same thing;that there is a strong ISKCON slant on the Hindu pages. The fact remains, the older Vaishnava sampradayams uphold to the Shruti or the older scriptures that say...Vishnu is the first. While ISKCON/Gaudiyas follow the newer books. Plain and simple. Wikidas and other ISKCON-ites have been and are STILL trying to write every thing that has to do with Vaishnavism and Hinduism with their Group slant. I am sorry if I come off combative, or in the words of wikidas..."disruptive". But, in the face of this BIAS, I have to be like Parasurama. And, uphold REAL Vedic-Hindu truth against latter-day "group" beliefs, especially those that are not accepted by the greater Hindu community.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Why not then this

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

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

proposed lead

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

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

---

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

OK, I'll bite, and disagree a bit. I believe that any intro should be simple, short, and useful to people who don't know very much about the subject. Most people who use this will not know what Vaishnavas are, let alone know or care about the niceties of the previous arguments. I'm not suggesting that these arguments are not relevant to the article, just that they do not belong in the intro.

Hence, I'll suggest either leaving out the entire paragraph - Vaishnava tradition of Hinduism is monotheistic in its understanding of Krishna. A distinguishing feature of the Vaisnava teachings is that God, as Krishna or Vishnu, is a real being and His creation is also real. - or moving it later into the article, as appropriate.

(p.s., is it not the case that honorific title case in pronouns e.g. '... and His creation...' is against Wiki policy? It might be ok for for the word 'God', since in this case it also implies the 'one' god; but not in pronouns).

Imc (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In theory, your suggestion is a good idea. However, I agree with the above - keep it simple and informative. Perhaps the theological differences should be kept in a separate section in the main article. Many reading the article will have never heard of Krishna and want to know who Krishna is and won't know (or care) about theological differences about viewing Him until they know that much. For this reason I think we should move the information about the differences in viewing Him to a separate section and keep the mention of it simple in the lead paragraph(s). As for Wikipedia's policies on honorifics, see WP:HONOR, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics, and Wikipedia:MOS#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Its just a quote from the MOS. a light reading

_{The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.}

I know I should have just given you the link. But I still think its better to read it. Wikidās ॐ 22:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The introductory part of the article came out pretty good, but I think we should also make it clear that Vaishnavas are the majority of all Hindus.Gaura79 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybey that should be for the Vaishnava article not here?

why duzenthis article got other perspectives? Im not talking about other religions/...

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

Maybe we should discuss deletion of the section. I think we discussed it before already. Lets see if everyone agrees with the deletion. [10]

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

Concerns about current lede

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

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

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

I propose the following lead:

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

The adherents of the Vaishnava branch of Hinduism, who represent the majority of all Hindus, regard Vishnu as the Supreme God and the source of all avatars, while Krishna is usually worshiped as a full avatar of Vishnu or regarded as non-different from Him. In some Vaishnava traditions, such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, Krishna is worshiped as svayam bhagavan, believed to be the source of all avatars including Vishnu. The exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu, particularly regarding which is "primary" to the other, is one of the more frequently discussed topics in the Vaishnava tradition. Vaishnava tradition is a monotheistic branch of Hinduism. A distinguishing feature of the Vaisnava teachings is that God, as Krishna or Vishnu, is a real being and His creation is also real. There are a number of perspectives on Krishna within other traditions in India.

Krishna is often described as having the appearance of a dark-skinned man during his earthly incarnation, often depicted as a young cowherd boy playing a flute (as in the Bhagavata Purana) or a youthful prince giving philosophical direction and guidance to others (as in the Bhagavad Gita).

Krishna and the stories associated with him appear across a broad spectrum of Hindu philosophical and theological traditions. Though they sometimes differ in details reflecting the concerns of a particular tradition, some core features are shared by all. These include a divine incarnation, a pastoral childhood and youth, and life as a heroic warrior and teacher.

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

Gaura, I think you missed the point I was making. Many of the statements in the current lede are (1) unsupported by the attached citations, (2) would be unclear to someone who is not knowledgeable of the subject already and (3) are overly broad. These problems, unfortunately, will not be solved by rearranging the order of the sentences. Abecedare (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Perhaps you're right about the first point, but let's put it this way: can you cite any reliable sources that would disagree with what is written in the introductory part of the article? In my humble opinion, what is stated there is pretty much obvious for anybody sufficiently familiar with the matter. 2) I think the intro gives a simple introduction, but at the same time looks more deep into the matter. Some parts of it may not be easily understood by someone not familiar with the subject and so what? Do you suggest we should write it having in mind someone mentally challenged? Why underestimate so much Wikipedia readers. 3) It should be broad and give a summary of the whole article.Gaura79 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is not whether we disagree with what is in the introduction, or if there are references disagreeing with it. It is about relevance; about encyclopaedic writing; about providing a good and unbiased introduction.

The intro now has become increasingly disjointed and biased toward explaining the importance of Krishna to Vaishnava beliefs, and the differences between these beliefs. The original source material for Krishna, the main text of the 18 parvas of the Mahabharata, is not mentioned now. It seems to me that it is more important to refer to Krishna's role in the Mahabharata, since since this is more important to Indian traditions and Hinduism as a whole.

For some of the recent additions such as this - A distinguishing feature of the Vaisnava teachings is that God, as Krishna or Vishnu,[7][8] is a real being and His creation is also real - I cannot deduce any useful meaning. It seems to me that it only has meaning when compared to those who believe that he is not real, or that creation is not real. What is this doing at the head of the article?

Imc (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The focus of the current lead has largely shifted to Vaishnava theology and doesn't talk very much about Krishna, who should be the primary subject of the lead. I propose somewhat of a lead rewrite. For reference, to see the lead of a well-written article about a Hindu deity, see the FA Ganesha - something like this would be better for the article. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The Vaishnava tradition of Hinduism is monotheistic in its understanding of Krishna. A distinguishing feature of the Vaisnava teachings is that God, as Krishna or Vishnu, is a real being and His creation is also real.

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

Ok, I have finished repairing all the refs I broke.

However, we still need to check whether these and other references actually support the statements they are attached to. Abecedare (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Krishna is often described as having the appearance of a dark-skinned man during his earthly incarnation, often depicted as a young cowherd boy playing a flute (as in the Bhagavata Purana) or a youthful prince giving philosophical direction and guidance (as in the Bhagavad Gita).

Krishna and the stories associated with him appear across a broad spectrum of Hindu philosophical and theological traditions. Though they sometimes differ in details reflecting the concerns of a particular tradition, some core features are shared by all. These include a divine incarnation, a pastoral childhood and youth, and life as a heroic warrior and teacher.

The worship of Krishna in Hinduism is part of Vaishnavism. All Vaisnava traditions recognize Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu; others identify Krishna with Vishnu; while traditions, such as, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, also regard Krishna as the svayam bhagavan, original form of God.

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