Talk:Krishna/Archive 4

Krishna and Alvars

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

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

The cited references are:

• Bilvanmangala author of Krishna Karnamrita. Krishna Theatre in India By M.L. Varalpande, p.88; 2002. ISBN:8170171512
• A History of Indian Literature, 500-1399: From Courtly to the Popular. Page 230 By Sisir Kumar Das. 2005 Sahitya Akademi. ISBN:8126021713
• Journal of the University of Bombay. Dr. Majmudar. v.11 pt.1-2 P. 34 1942.

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

To my knowledge, the Alvars were all Vaishnavas, but while they did worship Vishnu and all of His avatars, they never believed Krishna to be the source of them; they believed Vishnu is the source of the avatars. I have searched multiple times, and have yet to find a single source (even one that would undeniably fail WP:RS) that states that the Alvars believed Krishna as the source of the avatars. Also, the sources provided do not support the "as well historically by alvars and other early adepts such as Bilvanmangala" part of the statement above. Until we can find a reliable source that can prove the statement, it should be removed, as there is nothing I can find to support it. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick note: I have currently removed the statement from the article. We can readd it if a good source is found. Abecedare (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Alvars worshiped Krsna under the name Vaasudev. Maybe that will improve your search through references. (Who wrote this? ---Govinda Ramanuja dasa)

First off, The alwars KNEW that Krishna was Vishnu! The Alwars worshipped Vishnu/Narayana! Because it says so in the pre-itihasas text. Some of the alwars might of had Krishna as their ista-deva. But, But they knew that Vishnu is the First. Many hindus worship Krishna as their ista-deva, but, know Him to be Vishnu/Narayana. One of the main Divya-prabantams intoned by Sri Vaishnavas is the beautiful and powerful "Thiruppavai"...which is dedicated to Krishna! But, every one knows that Krishna is Vishnu. No questions asked. When it comes to things like this...we should and Must qoute and follow scripture! And, not some 13th-15th century Gaudiya or other Schism group books or books by others outside of the Sanatana-Dharma. And, the qoute from Bilvanmangala, is absolutely unfounded and the book that is was in is minor and trival. We must qoute scripture/Sastra and not some outside sources. With things like this, we are NOT going to find any thing that will justify Krishna as the source and, most perposterously, that the alwars BELEIVED that Krishna is the source. We need to ask Vedically trainned pandits for questions like this, and, The majority of them will tell you that, according to Sastra and Sadhu, Vishnu/Narayana in Vaikunta is the source. The only people saying other-wise are the ISKCON/Gaudiyas Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK the Alwars are often associated with Sri Vaishnavism and sometimes other 'mainstream' sects which is why we can't seem to find any sources supporting the statement above that has now been removed. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Alvars were loosely ideologically affiliated:

The Alvar Andal's popular collection of songs Tiruppavai, in which she conceives of herself as a Gopi, is perhaps the oldest work of this genre. Kulashekhara's Mukundamala was another notable offering of this early stage.

he lokāḥ śṛṇuta prasūti-maraṇa-vyādheś cikitsām imāṁ

yoga-jñāḥ samudāharanti munayo yāṁ yājñavalkyādayaḥ

antar-jyotir ameyam ekam amṛtaṁ kṛṣṇākhyam āpīyatāṁ

tat pītaṁ paramauṣadhaṁ vitanute nirvāṇam ātyantikam

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

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

Of the many hundreds of poetic Sanskrit stotras-songs of glorification offered to the Supreme Lord, His devotees, and the holy places of His pastimes—King Kulaśekhara's Mukunda-mālā-stotra is one of the most perennially famous. Some say that its author conceived it as a garland (mālā) of verses offered for Lord Kṛṣṇa's pleasure.

I will look for some more evidence, but your understand the fine line between the two before you jump in to judge or consider Alvars in Sri Sampradaya.Wikidās ॐ 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

See also[1] at least some Alvars existed before the concept of Sri Sampradaya or Nathamunis theory. On the other hand Sri claims that they belong to it, did any early Alvar ever said something to this effect? Wikidās ॐ 09:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

While it is uncertain as to which sampradaya the Alwars belonged to, Sri Vaishnavas and Madhvas are especially particular as labeling them as part of theirs. In fact, Sri Vaishnavas consider them so important that they are often automatically labeled as following that sampradaya. (By contrast, I have never seen or heard of a Gaudiya, Nimbarka, or Vallabha follower who has classified the Alwars as belonging to their sampradaya.) However, nearly all recognize that whichever sampradaya they belonged to, they worshipped Vishnu as the source of all avatars, which was typical at the time, and a key concept of Sri Vaishnavas and Madhvas. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Shruti, the reason its not clear to which sampradaya the Alvars belonged to among the current sampradayas because at the time of their Bhagavata poetry Sri Sampradaya did not exist. Nor did any of them were of any particular school of philosophy, they were free radicals... most likely in the Bhagavata tradition. Its an opinion of some, bhagavata sampradaya already existed and Alvars actually made it popular with their bhakti poetry. Its a conclusive in many works:

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

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

If you do not mind, this can be used as a reference to the current bhakti movement article and this Krishna article. Let me know what you think. As its a known fact that "praise of Krsna begins with the South Indian Alvars""JSTOR: History of Religions, Vol. 12, No. 2, (1972 ), pp. 149-180". www.jstor.org. Retrieved 2008-04-30.

Kinsley, D. (1972). "Without Krsna There Is No Song". History of Religions. 12 (2): 149. Retrieved 2008-04-30.

Dehejia, V. (1990). Antal and Her Path of Love: Poems of a Woman Saint from South India. State University of New York Press.http://www.jstor.org/pss/2058600 also see: Vaudeville, Charlotte. "Evolution of Love-Symbolism in Bhagavatism." Journal of the American Oriental Society (1962): 31-40

Im sure Alvars and in particular Antal would be opposed of putting her in a sectarian box of this or that sampradaya, even in the context of Wiki. We, in our movement of Krishna consciousness at least for the last 125 years refer to the life of Ramanuja, translate his works, study Alvars and publish their poetry, so they belong to 'us' (if there is 'us') as much, even if they were first deified by the founders of Ramanuja line.

Wikidās ॐ 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

My friend, this is totally, absolutely preposterous! I dont know where you got your information...but, it is totally non-scriptural and against all establish Vaishnava/Hindu traditions and principles! And,This was not believed in by any alwar, Ramanujacharya or any one or any thing else. I will contest this. I will go to actual, vedically trained pandits, if need be, to prove this ISKCON/Gaudiya concoction and speculation is wrong. Your hypothesis way out there! This takes the cake for outlandish ISKCON/Gaudiya beliefs!Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Im certainly your friend.. Why do you think that two out of 4 main sampradayas maintain that above all Visnus that are involved in creation, there is an adi-rasa form who is the source of all potencies?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikidās ॐ 10:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeuspitar, Abecedare is not an admin but he is completely entitled to do what he currently is doing, that is, making sure both you and Wikidas adhere to Wikipedia's policies. (See WP:ENC and WP:NOT is and is not respectively). I encourage you to read Wiki's policy on WP:CIVILTY before accusing Abecedare of various things. You are right however, that Wikidas' notions more than likely can't be supported by WP:RS and are therefore not worthy enought to be on this (or on any Vishnu related) page. Furthermore, I second Abecedare's comment that this discussion doesn't suit the purpose of Wikipedia so it might as well be transferred to another website or forum which would allow this. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 11:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

First, this it not about numbers. the Gaudiya and other groups are minority group, if not cults. their beliefs are not in keeping with the majority of Vaishnavas. Please, I have put on many pages that the ISKCON/Gaudiya beliefs are not in keeping with Scripture.period.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(BTW - the link is WP:CIVILITY, not WP:CIVILTY). 02:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Some references that may be useful-

---

by Samuel George Frederick Brandon:

Page 137 Thus the Bhagavatas represent beginning of - Vaisnavism, ...

By time of Bhagavadgita devotion to Krishna, Vasudeva and Vishnu had been synthesised

Brandon, S.G. (1970–1978). Dictionary of Comparative Religion. Macmillan Pub Co. ISBN 0684310090. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)

---

Page 76 of 386 pages: The Bhagavata religion with the worship of Vasudeva Krishna as the ... of Vasudeva Krishna and they are the direct forerunners of Vaisnavism in India.

Ehrenfels, U.R. (1953). "The University Of Gauhati". Dr. B. Kakati Commemoration Volume.

---

Page 98: In the Mahabharata, Vasudeva-Krishna is identified with the highest God.

Mishra, Y.K. (1977). Socio-economic and Political History of Eastern India. Distributed by DK Publishers' Distributors.

---

Page 109 of 128 pages

Quote with reference to EB-CDROM:Sectarian Vaishnavism had its beginnings in the cult of Vasudeva-Krishna, who may have been a Yadava tribal leader (c. 7th-6th century BC)

Ravasco, G. (2006). Towards a Christian Pastoral Approach to Cambodian Culture. Lulu. com. ISBN 1411693302.

---

Page 10: Panini, the fifth-century BC Sanskrit grammarian also refers to the term Vaasudevaka, explained by the second century B.C commentator Patanjali, as referring to "the follower of Vasudeva, God of gods."

Singh, R.R. (2007). Bhakti And Philosophy. Lexington Books. ISBN 0739114247.

--Wikidās ॐ 11:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas,

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

dab (𒁳) 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• Comment The suggestion that started this discussion does have some merit - at the least, it is a subject worthy of reflection. The traditions known as Vaishnava, Pancaratra and Bhagavata all weave in and out of each other. To define a clear border between them is difficult. For example, noted Hindu scholar Gavin Flood states in his text, Hinduism: An Introduction page on 118 that...

"Early Vaishnava worship focuses on three deities who become fused together, namely Vasudeva-Krishna, Krishna-Gopala and Narayana, who in turn all become identified with Vishnu. Put simply, Vasudeva-Krishna and Krishna-Gopala were worshiped by groups generally refered to as Bhagavatas, while Narayana was worshipped by the Pancaratra sect." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A refert on Krishna page

As you have suggested I wanted to discuss your revert on [3]. Maybe you can spell it out for us please. Not that I insist that it should be there, but its a valid addition of the meaning of the word. In Sanskrit word very often taken apart when meaning is described. Wikidās ॐ 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

In a nutshell the issue is as follows:

• The etymology of a word is a matter, not of faith, but of language, which is handled by dictionaries. Standard Sanskrit dictionaries include Apte, Monier Williams etc; some of which are even available online.
• While it is true that Sanskrit allows extensive conjugation of morphemes to form longer words, this process is governed by strict rules and is not random or arbitrary. In particular the breaking of the word kṛṣṇa into its syllables and assigning them independent power (not meaning!) is a matter of an esoteric tradition (i.e. interpretation) and not linguistics (i.e. translation). Even your citation says as much, right before the part you referenced.
• That said, it is certainly valid to discuss these traditional interpretations in their proper context. In this case, mentioning the innumerable interpretations of Krishna's various names is simply undue in the Krishna article. Feel free to add the information to the Shuddhadvaita page, which needs to be rewritten anyway so that it is about the sampradaya instead of the founder Vallabha Acharya. Make sure that you cite the source correctly!

Let me know if you have any questions. Abecedare (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. This page is the best place for these discussions. I appreciate your comments and will pause and reflect upon them. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have started a rewrite of the Shuddhadvaita article and have added Beck as a source there. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Abecedare (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Its certainly that the section called The Name was changed to Etimology, that makes it hard to fit in. While I accept that maybe this particular phrase with the quote is better for other articles such as Suddhadvaita. Maybe a shorter statement for interpretation of Pustis can be placed here. Wikidās ॐ 09:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Art, iconography, et.c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with you that the above content (with citations) deserves to be mentioned in the article. One option, instead of adding a separate iconography section, would be to mention these facts in the related place in the "Life" section, or even in the image captions. That will draw a stronger link between the depictions in art/paintings and the episodes from the epics/puranas; and also avoid mentioning the same biographical details twice. What do you think ?

PS: The colour is briefly discussed in the "Etymology" section only because of the translation of Krishna; the section name therefore should not have "colour" in it, just as the Etymology section in the India page is not labeled, "Etymology and rivers"! Abecedare (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an "Iconography", "Depictions", or similar section is more appropriate for this material. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

All-attractive

How is this ref [4] for the statement "The Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition interprets Krishna as all-attractive, based on a verse from Mahabharata that is quoted in Chaitanya Charitamrita."--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Brahma Samhita

I've just had my removal of Prabhupada's translation of something from this reverted - [5]. It seems to me that the Brahma Samhita is itself a rather esoteric work, and care needs to be taken that it not be treated as a primary or reliable source for all aspects of Hinduism. This applies even more so given the emphasis (still in the article) on particular Vaishnava schools and teachings. Imc (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote in the "Art, iconography etc" section, I would prefer if the "he is often depicted in paintings and murtis with blue or dark skin." is left in the etymology section since that provides immediate context; but it should be referenced using a secondary source (shouldn't be difficult at all) and not a passage from Brahma Samhita. My views on when/how primary religious sources should be used in an article are summarized on RS noticeboard, and I think this article falls short in several places. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The bit about his depictions was taken out of the etymology section, because it was intended to be in the new iconography section, (which was added a few minutes later!) Imc (talk)

I would suggest the following reference to the secondary sources to the Brahma Samhita quote:

1) Sanatana Dharma - Page 50, 1979"His eternally beautiful and heavenly blue-tinged Body glowing with the intensity of thousands of suns."

2) Rabindranath Tagore (editor from 1923) (Summer 1974 issue). The Visva-bharati Quarterly. Visva-bharati. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |year= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) p. 167: "I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord. Who is adept in playing on His flute, with blooming eyes like lotus petals with Head decked with peakock feathers with Figure of beauty with the hue of blue clouds, and His unique Lovliness charming millions of cupids."

3) Knapp, S. (2005). The Heart of Hinduism: The Eastern Path to Freedom, Empowerment and Illumination. iUniverse. p. 226: "Lord Brahma relates Lord Krishna's form in the many verses of his Brahma-samhita. ... He says that Lord Krishna's body is dark blue like a new cloud."

Let me know which one is your favorite. Wikidās ॐ 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To clear up one matter, the interpretation of his colour as dark blue, as opposed to black, is not in dispute. The 'cultural identification', for lack of a better term, of black and dark blue is characteristic of Hindu religious art. Dictionary definitions including those that I've quoted before, of the words Krishna and Shyama give both colours. I suggest the addition of a sentence pointing this out, with one of the main dictionaries for a reference. (For myself, I've never seen a cloud that I would describe as blue, but then I was brought up outside India from a young age.) However, it is not necessary to treat such works as the Brahma Samhita as a general reference. Imc (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Imc here. Also note that some dictionaries define "Krishna" as 'dark' and not 'black' (although not all). (As for the clouds, I never understood that perfectly well either, but it wasn't uncommon to use that description in folk literature to refer to the blue-tinged apparent reflection of the sky, at least in the rural area where my grandfather was raised...) --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the source of this appears to be Prabhupada's commentary of the Chaitanya Charitamrita. The author (Krishnadasa Kaviraja) himself presents a sort of mystical etymology of krishna, claiming that krs is for bhū "existence; earth" and ṇa is for nirvṛti "bliss, pleasure". Why that should be so --- ask Krishnadasa. Now Prabhupada translates bhū as "attractive existence" for some reason. Why he does that -- ask Prabhupada. It may be because the root krs "to plough" (which is of course completely unrelated to krsna "black") besides "to plow", "to drag" can also mean "to draw into one's power". We thus have an etymological speculation of Prabhupada's, connecting krishna with the root krs, but hiding the association behind a "translation" of Krishnadasa's bhū (while Krishnadasa's own association appears to be krs - "to plough" - "earth") .(see Prabhupada's commentary on Chaitanya Charitamrita 9.30) This is all very interesting, but it is mysticism, not linguistics or etymology. dab (𒁳) 16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This interpretation is a valid interpretation in a major Krishna-centered tradition of Hinduism and thus is a valid reference to be retained in the article, its notable and if there are any reliable sources that disagree with this interpretation, one should state it, otherwise its an original research. I personally have not seen any critique of this interpretation of the name coming from a reliable sources and one should not assume that just because dictionary does not give it it is in any way less important. Wikidās ॐ 20:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. I did not suggest we remove it. I was insisting we document its provenance. The "all attractive" "translation" is Prabhupada's. Its notability is depenent on Prabhupada's. Prabhupada is notable to the topic of "Krishna", but he does not have jurisdiction over it. dab (𒁳) 20:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeap, agree with you, Dbachmann. Nobody has jurisdiction over this topic, there are a few perspectives and all need to be incorporated in a neutral article. This is a notable perspective and is not a WP:FRINGE, I would be careful with that - not only its against the spirit of neutrality, but is also just someone is not religious does not make every religious view a fringe, totally incorrect view and especially if you write about such topic as Krishna. These are NOT amateur and self-published texts. Nor its a creation science. All significant views are to be represented fairly and without bias, with representation in direct proportion to their prominence and summarizing the information gleaned from secondary sources, and in some cases from primary sources that are applicable to the particular subject, but not exclusively. There is a need for atheistic bias as well as theistic bias to be removed and such prominent and notable religious view reflected - that is common sense for us, otherwise one may suspect you are wikilawyering just because you do not like a particular religious tradition, very notable I may add and with a good amount of prominence for this article. Wikidās ॐ 08:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Krishna in the Rigveda

Further to this edit - [6] which states that 'some authors' (R G Bhandarkar, spelt wrong) suggest that the Krishna draksha in the Rigveda refers to the deity. The authority for the quotation is a book from Sunil Bhattacharya. The latter only mentions Bhandarkar in order to disagree with him, with detailed reasons. Without the direct quote I don't feel it is reasonable to add this; Bhandarkar may have been speculating. Imc (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

ahem, yes, you can count on the "Krishnologists" jumping on every mention of anything "dark" or "black" in the Vedas. It's pathetic scholarship, of course, but then we cover "notability, not truth (or scholarly integrity; or sanity)". dab (𒁳) 17:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote from Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar discussed in this section of the book is significant. Hardly to be dismissed as a misquoted statement or by labeling it in a any way. There is hardly any note of this being pathetic, except that he is very very prominent and the earliest indigenous modern historian of India. Hardly not a notable reference and needs to be addressed as a valid pout of view. If need be, a more prominent point of view should be presented that disagrees with this as an opinion or a view as per WP:YESPOV. One should not dismiss an opinion, just because its not what you learned from other sources and this is certainly a reliable source. Wikidās ॐ 20:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bhandarkar is notable in his own right, yes. But he cannot rewrite the Rigveda. If you can provide a precise reference to Bhandarkar's work, we can certainly quote him. dab (𒁳) 20:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sunil Bhattacharya reference states that Bhandarkar provides no reference. However he states Wilson, Colebrooke, W.D.P.Hill all agree that it does not apply to the same Vasudeva Krishna as Bhagavad Gita. I think this notion is notable.

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

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

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

There are no "names of Krishna is mentioned in the Vedas proper", this is WP:FRINGE stuff, get over it. The character of Krishna first appears in the Mahabharata. dab (𒁳) 21:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Im afraid that Encyclopedic Dictionary of Yoga (Georg Feuerstein) 1990 Page 121 states that Govinda ("Cow Finder"), one of the epithets of "Krishna. ... This usage is already known to the ancient seers of the Rig-Veda." That is not a WP:Fringe Govinda/Govind is the 'name of Krishna' that was used in the Veda (not for Krishna but to Indra), just as Gopa (Gopal) was applied to Vishnu. You keep misunderstanding me. You assume that just because Krishna's names were used in the Veda, it means he himself figures in the Veda. No he does not. Just as Radha occurs in such texts as Rg-Veda 8:45:24, Atharva-veda 19:7 - it does not mean that she is the subject of the texts. Its the name being mentioned that matters. Just as in the above passage the name Krishna draksha IS in the Rigveda. Does it apply to Krishna - not according to the majority of the scholars, and that is an important point. Please do not jump to conclusions, usage of name is different to identity of Krishna (that is disputed but only Bhandarkar supports it and Wilson, Colebrooke, Hill all agree that it does not apply to the same Vasudeva Krishna as in Bhagavad Gita. In the above you clearly can not distinguish between name and character. Please nobody is going to rewrite Rig-Veda... Wikidās ॐ 22:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One example is Rig Veda 10:108:3, where Indra is invited by the Panis to be "the herdsman of their cattle", Govinda. Wikidās ॐ 22:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

so Krishna is Indra now? What the hell Wikidas? Krishna has hundreds of epithets, all or most of them found in the Rigveda. So what? About half of them are shared by both Vishnu and Shiva. In this spirit, we might as well merge all articles in Category:Hindu deities into a single one. A great idea for mystic meditation, perhaps, but hardly for encyclopedic coverage. I get it, Krishna is God, ok? Be happy with this truth, but don't try to build an encyclopedia on it. dab (𒁳) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you said 'no "names of Krishna are mentioned in the Vedas proper"' - this is incorrect, at least to me. We are not discussing him being god or Vedic god. Names of Krishna such as 'Govinda' and 'Gopal' figure in the Veda. It is the encyclopedic approach - names are different from persons. If I was bringing up religious perspective, I would be siting religious sources. If the name Dbachmann was mentioned in the Rig Veda - it would be notable in the article about you. RV VIII 85.13-15 mentions the name, but not everyone agrees that this name is about Krishna himself. I think we understand what we are talking about. Please understand, Im not trying to pick the fight with you, I appreciate you edits, I just want to be clear that we are talking about the same thing ie names as in things you read before you interpret them, it appears you jump to conclusions, but it could be attributed to some of my previous edits. Wikidās ॐ 22:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

if you like. Christ has been given epithets of "shepherd", "Sun" etc., and, lo and behold, words for "shepherd" and "sun" are found in Homer, and in the Vedas. Hence, the Vedas and Homer contain "names of Christ". Nonsense? Sure. These are words that later came to be used as a deity's epithets. But I appreciate that we are not actually in a dispute here, the article is fine as it stands. dab (𒁳) 09:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Every one has told wikidas about the "Krishna" question in the Rig Veda many, many, many times. It is tiring already. He keeps harping about this "Krishna qouted in the Rig Veda" erroneous notion. We have told him time and again about the word "Krishna" means black in the Vedas. He would get it through his head. This has to be a dispute about this non-sense notion and all of wikidas's perposterious cult notions and fantasies. We have told him over 5 times already...we got to do some thing...he has marred alot of the Hindu articles with his non-sense.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Merger of Krishna Vasudeva article

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

 Done

Little work left for GA

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

I added Radha Kund to the "See also" section. I was confused in how to accomplish that addition. Please review the Krishna article to correct any mistakes I made in this addition. I am sorry for the trouble. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Have moved it around - let me know if this is what you mean by corrections. Wikidās ॐ 03:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wikidas. I appreciate your help, I was unsure as how to correct this. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As a GA reviewer, i think this article may make it through GA. Please nominate it, worth the try.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a few grammatical errors in the text, I am copyediting the article currently. Please do not nominate for GA immediately - may fail "stable" clause.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would put it up for pier review at this stage.Wikidās ॐ 22:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sahasranama

Challenging the statement "In the hymn Vishnu Sahasranama composed by Bhishma in praise of Krishna after the Kurukshetra war, he is also called Rama.", though referenced, is a minority view.

"in praise of Krishna" can be challenged too. Encyclopaedia of Indian literature vol. 5 Published by Sahitya Akademi, (a Reliable source) doesn't even mention Krishna, it says the Vishnu Sahasranama (lit. "thousand names of Vishnu") "extols Vishnu". Other refs are : [7], [8]The text also names all other avatars of Vishnu like Vamana, Varaha inclusive of Rama,[9][10] as synonyms to Vishnu, but in reality are distinct forms of Vishnu. So "he is also called Rama" is unneccesary. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your point, but I can not see it as a minority view, mainly because its a statement of fact and is supported by Shankaras view which is first historically[11] and as Bhishma on [12] the bed of arrows at Kurukshetra was factually facing Krishna when he was speaking His Sahasranama.[13]

I think inclusion of this quote should clarify it: "Krishna is more specifically looked upon as a full manifestation of Vishnu, and as one with Vishnu himself",(Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology and Religion,-Page 361)

If there is evidence that contradicts this let us know and it can form a different view to the WP:YESPOV. Maybe the view that Vishnu and Krishna are the same, can be stressed before including this statement to make it clear and NPOV. If they are not identical, however, then there should be no mention of Vishnu Sahasranama for this Krishna article, just as there should be no mention of Siva sahasranama or Lalita Sahasranama.

BTW In the Visnu Sahasranama its Krsna who is glorified and praised as Vishnu as seems to be clear from this passage of Encyclopaedia Indica [[14]]Wikidās ॐ 21:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

13, 14 links were not fully visible though link 15 relates Krishna to the Sahasranama. Are Vishnu's thousand names considered as names of Krishna is open to debate. I will support the statement "there should be no mention of Vishnu Sahasranama for this Krishna article". I do not see any point in naming Rama as a name of Krishna, Rama was a separate individual. Rama, Varaha, Trivikrama, Vamana, Krishna are all called as names of Vishnu in Sahasranama; as they are believed to be his avatars or forms. Stressing Rama to be a name of Krishna is UNDUE.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think its undue, but maybe just confusing, as its actually his name as per Bhagavata Purana's Garga rishi. Anyhow I have removed it to make it less confusing. Wikidās ॐ 06:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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; [[15]]

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" [16] and Govinda as herdsman [17] 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". [18]. Go thus is translated appropriately as Cows. It might be noted that MWSD translates vinda as to find, get.[19] 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. Aparna^BlackPearl14 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)

I agree that the whole sentence should be removed in this case as you said: "if there is no source to the description, it will likely have to be removed". There is not a single source to support that is is "often described" as a "dark-skinned man" during his. Not the "man" anyway, and not "skinned'. Who described him like that? Wikidās ॐ 09:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see where "skinned" came from - it's a bit awkward to leave "Krishna is described as dark, who..." as is. As for "man"... probably from someone who isn't from the Vaishnava tradition? In any case, that should be removed and/or changed for NPOV. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 00:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, screw my point. I was looking beyond... (*assumes embarrased face*) Sorry! BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 20:05, 12 August 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 is everyone for Christ sakes!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.112.21 (talk) 12:40, 17 November 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. However the exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu is complex and diverse, where Krishna is considered an independent deity, supreme in its own right.

All Vaishnava traditions recognise Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu; others identify Krishna with Vishnu; while traditions, such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, regard Krishna as the svayam bhagavan, original form of God, or the Lord himself. In the list of the epithets attributed to Krishna, he is described as the 'source of all incarnations' by Rupa Goswami.

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)

I agree with both of you! :) Firstly, don't we all agree the sources (currently in the lead) are very valuable. Secondly, as someone who knows little about Hinduism, I appreciate having notable branches actually named in the text (somewhere). Finally, don't we all agree that the lead should be a summary, and more about Krishna than Vaishnavism? The relationship between Krishna and Vishnu in different traditions is complex, so editors could expand on this into the future were it to have its own section. Moving detailed discussion of Vishnu to the main body would leave more space to summarise key information regarding Krishna in the lead.

Whatever you two work out, thanks for a lot of sources in this article, informative text and a lot of helpful images to illustrate it. Please keep doing your good work. This is a very important article—there are many Krishna devotees; it really needs generous contributors (from any background) to work towards it being featured. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point Alistair. There should only be one section in the article and a few sentence in the lead that talk about denominations (Vaishnavism, Gaudiya Vaishnavism and Krishanism). The rest of the article should be about Krishna specifically. The structure of the WP:FA Ganesha should be adopted into this and all Hindu deity articles. The Krishna article already has sections on Etymology, Iconography and in Other Religions. But it needs sections on Temples, Festivals, History of Worship & Scriptures, and Associations. Althought Ganesha doesn't have a performing arts section, such a section is very informative and should stay. But the Early historical references, Early Worship, Bhakti Tradition and Krishnology section should combine to form History of Worship. The difference views of Krishna can have its own section too. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 07:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the above proposal of only one section dealing with dilemmas of Vaishnavism and Krishnaism, this is article of the person not about associated worship. Additional section(s) as per FA quoted would be an advantage. Wikidās ॐ 08:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of good thoughts there Wikidas. If I'm not mistaken, Krishna features extensively in classical literature, obviously the Bhagavad Gita, but there's a lot more than that, isn't there. Written documentation like that is perfect for Wikipedia, for academic commentaries, and for readers to pursue research for themselves.

It's an interesting idea to be open to having separate articles for Krishna himself and for the various formal structures of expressing devotion. I wouldn't be too shy about having worship in this article, but I think you're right, it would be the first section to move off into a fresh article if this one becomes too big.

Still, it is hard to stress how important Krishna is within Hinduism and related traditions, and how long the literary history of this theological discussion related to him. This article can be sensibly long, the important thing is to be sourced, neutral and not to go in circles saying the same thing (and in Sanskrit at that, lol). The article is doing well at the moment. I think the way forward is sorting out a logical structure, ordering and organizing, and writing up answers to the natural questions arising from this from sources. Just exactly like you are both saying.

You have the knowledge and access to better books than distant Australians like me. Please keep donating a little time to teach us what the sources say, guided by your own extensive knowledge and experience. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a good way to discuss literature is to split it into three parts. The first two will do with ancient (Sanskrit) literature. The first will focus on the Bhagavad Gita, the second on the Puranas. The third part can then discuss modern literature, like Bhakti poems in modern Indian languages. Of course we can only write in WP:Summary Style so perhaps we can only list the modern literature because of the limited space. A sub-article called Literature of Krishna could then be made in the future. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 12:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that "Worship in Vaishnavism" is formed, i agree with Shruti that only "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." is enough in the lead.Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 00:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)