Talk:Vaishnavism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vaishnavism article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
WikiProject Vaishnavism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vaishnavism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Vaishnavism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Future improvements

If anyone has any practical ideas or comments on the possible future improvement of this article then please discuss them here. The Tilak section obviously needs sourcing, and probably shortening in size and the History section could do with expanding. Does anyone else have other comments? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The history section needs sources. There is a section in Gavin Flood's Hinduism, as well as a chapter in his edited Blackwell Companion to Hinduism by Gerard Colas. Sukumari Bhattacharji's The Indian Theogony has plenty of literary material on Vishnu and the various avataras, but hardly anything at all on Vaishnavism per se. There is also a problem with balance, because historically the Vaikhanasas and the Pancaratras played an important role in doctrinal development while becoming relatively unimportant later. And finally there is a problem with terminology: the word "cult" unfortunately has negative connotations, whereas NPOV-istically, Vaishnavism as a "religion" indeed developed out of a fusion of various "cults" (e.g. Vasudeva, Gopala, Narayana.) rudra (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Do I smell collaborative scholarship?
Sweet
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 10:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
And which sources do you find suitably fragrant? rudra (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Your probubly were the one that created and started this Vaishnava page, but,...you are NOT the web-master. According to the laws and guidelines of Wikipedia, we all have equal rein on the website. Is it just me or three people have already pointed out the blantant ISKON/Gaudiya slant that you've put on this page and have argued over it? Or, how you have taken out useful information conserning other Sampradayams in favor of yours? I think this matter should be taken to the Civil Liberties Union immediately. Wikipedia is doing nothing about it. I am STILL upset that the info I put about the Sri Sampradayam Tilak also symbolizing the ida, pingala and shushumna nadi's was taken out. Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 15:48, 3 Feb 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV HEADER

Dear Swami's, after going to the Bhagavata purana article and clicking on both the Vaishnava theology and Gaudiya theology link, and looking at all three articles. There is such an ISKON/Gaudiya slant on not only this article, but, a number of articles relating to any thing Vaishnava. I believe that the "Vaishnava theology" article is just a spring-board for the ISKON/Gaudiya group. It should be strictly a no-frills article for ALL Vaishnava group. This article was written with an absolute ISKON slant, I am sorry to say. With all the qoutes from ISKON/Gaudiya books, listing books only ISKON uses and the section of Western scholars(One in particular is very Notorious)makes it very ISKON slanted, very slanted. In the next couple of day, with the request of Rudra, I will list all that is ISKON/Gaudiya Sampradayam. Until, I will leave the POV header. I will be contacting Wikipedia about the "group" slant that exist on a number of articles written within the next couple of days.Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 12:31, 23 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)
I have removed the POV head. I think the article is pretty much open to all groups of vaishnavism now..Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 02:00, 04 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)

[edit] POV REMOVAL

Until the absolute ISKON slant on this article is dealt with, I will make sure that the POV header STAYS ON. I will check EVERY DAY, to see if it is still on. And, I will, if necessary, re-type it back on the article. Every time! I will not stop, until the ISKON bias and slant to this article is dealt with and changed. When I have the time; I will go through and list every thing that is blatantly ISKON, insuring that this is a non-bias,inclusive Vaishnava article. Where ALL Vaishnava groups are shown, without any ISKON slant..Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 21:45, 24 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)


I have removed the POV head. I think the article is pretty much open to all groups of vaishnavism now..Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 02:00, 04 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)

[edit] Needed changes for a non-bias article

With Rudra's request. I am listing all that is ISKON on this article. If we can negotiate and talk about changes, it would be helpful.
  1. The first paragraph of article/third sentence: It lists the "Isha Upanishad". The ISKON/Gaudiya group ONLY follow this Upanishad. But, in the Sri Sampradayam, the first Vaishnava Sampradayam, believes and follows the "Principle 11 Upanishads" with the Narayana and MahaNarayana upanishads.
  2. The first paragraph of article/third sentence: It does not list the original four Vedas. Sri Sampradayam follows strictly the Original four Vedas. The reason that it wasnt listed is because the ISKON/Gaudiya does not follow the four vedas, because they think it is "karma-kanda" and, they are above them. Vaishnavas follow ALL of the original Shastra.
  3. The first paragraph of article/third sentence: The Padma Purana should be added to list a long side the Vishnu and Bhagavata Purana. Sri Sampradayam follows not only these Main Sattvic Purana but, ALL of the Sattvic Puranas.
  4. The "Worship" section/First sentence: "Within their worship Vaishnava devotees will always see themselves as (at least partially) separate or distinct from their lord, Vishnu"....I am sorry, but, this is a Dwaita Saddanta belief of Madhvacharya. This not the Visishta-adwaita Saddanta the was espoused by Ramanujacharya and The Sri Sampradayam. A simple Visishta-adwaita sentence should be added after this dwaita sentence.
  5. The "Vaishnava Upanishads" section: I am sorry to say this, but, this section is a total ISKON/Gaudiya speculation and concoction. As stated before, Sri Sampradayam Vaishvanas follow all of the Main Upanishads with the Narayana and Maha-Narayana Upanishads. In fact, we follow All Shastras; the four Vedas, the main Upanishads, the Dharma Shastra (Manu Samhita), The Ramayana, the Mahabarata, The Bhagavad-gita, the Vedanta-sutras, the Sri Bhashya, the Sattvic Puranas and etc.
  6. The Western Scholar section: listing absolutely ISKON authors and gurus(some of them Notorious); and not listing non-ISKON Scholars and Pandits, shows the biasness of the article and that it is a spring-board for ISKON/Gaudiya. Either the whole section should be taken out or heavy modification to that section should take place. Wikipedia should be informed about the history of the people listed on this section. And, they should decide weither they can list some of the people on it.

If there can be some modifications to the things that were listed, it would be very helpful. If I dont hear any responses within the next 7 days, I will modify and re-edit these sections for a more non-bias stance to the article. If the needed changes do not appear and there is still a ISKON/Gaudiya resistance, I WILL be taking this to the ACLU here in Los Angeles and then to Wikipedia...Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 21:45, 24 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)

Thank you very much for this list of specifics. To keep the discussion focused, I propose creating new sections topically. I'll do so now, according to my take of what the separate issues are, but feel free to make changes. rudra (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere at last! Based on this we may even be able to co-operate on the article? Shock Horror! Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canonical Texts

This is with respect to points 1-3 above (Lead/Third sentence).

  • We need a list of canonical texts. If the list is too large, we may have to shorten the sentence to a non-specific "Its beliefs and practices (known as Bhakti Yoga, or Bhakti), are based largely on Vedic and Puranic texts" and leave the details to elsewhere in the article. It would be useful, however, if we could agree on a short (but not complete!) list to give as examples, on which all sampradayas would agree.
  • That said, I'm somewhat concerned about the "vedic" nature of "beliefs and practices". This, in my view, is largely dogma rather than fact. (Interestingly enough, the Isa Upanishad is mukhya, which would make it more "vedic" than either the Narayana or the Mahanarayana, although the latter could have some claim by being the 10th book of the Taittiriya Aranyaka). If the dogma is to be insisted upon, I would suggest replacing the fragment "Vedic and Puranic texts" with "the Vedas and Puranic texts". rudra (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
O.K. I think it is a good idea! This is the kind of thing we should have been doing! Yes, I totally agree! ..Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 12:35, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)
It makes sense to me to expand the list where relevant. We could also potentially have an additional section which covered this entire topic of canonical texts? Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worship

This is with respect to Zeuspitar's point #4 above. (Dvaita versus Visishtadvaita). Isn't there even more to this, such as Tenkalai vs Vadakalai? (e.g. the "baby monkey" vs "kitten" analogies) If we can't reach a consensus on a proper formulation of how Vaishnavas see themselves w.r.t Vishnu, it may be better to simply remove this sentence (it isn't really expanded upon in what follows, anyway.) rudra (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

With respects to both the Tenkakai and Vadakalai, we both beleive in the Visishta-adwaita. The "Baby monkey and kitten" principle is about how Vishnu treats His devotee in regards to means of Salvation. Thats all. And the minor, minor differences in both sub-sects of Sri Sam. are not even an issue any more. But, 2 to 4 hundred years ago..it was big.Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 12:33, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)
A good example of the Vasishta-adwaita, is the Ocean and the bubbles. The Ocean is Narayana and the bubbles are the jiva-atmas. But, in actuality, the bubbles, whole ocean, the wave are all Narayana. The Narayana suktam (especially this suktam) and upanishad really describes the this Principle. Another example is the jiva-atma and the body are just covering to Narayana. Vishnu is in the Soul and the soul is in the body. But, in actuality, it is all Narayana. the kitten and monkey principle are ideas of how Narayana with uplift and save the jiva-atma...it deals with how Vishnu saves the souls. The Va-ad. deals with the nature of Vishnu, while the kitten/monkey deals with ideas of salvation. I hope that this is some how helpful. ..Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 01:00, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)
Still, in all these examples (even the ocean & bubble) there is a distinction between Vishnu and the jiva. It is significantly different than the total monist approach, which is what the sentence is getting at. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, what the Vas.Ad. is trying to say is that there is a seeming distinction at certain level , but, ultimately....there is ONLY Narayana. Please remember, Narayana means "the supreme man that is the foundation of everyone and everything"...this is a lose tranlation. With the example of the ocean and bubbles...their Both water, there is only the ocean. Regardless of the the distiction of the waves or bubbles. It is still the water and the whole ocean itself. There is seeming difference, but, at the core, it is Narayana. Hence the Vashishta-adwaita philosophy. The Adwaita people took and chose the verses that fit into their philosophic veiw. And, thats what Madhvacharya and others did after Ramanujacharya left the planet also. There are alot of Adwaitic verses all over the vedic scriptures...yes. But, what about the ones that espouse the opposite. And, you can not just ignore the so-called adwaitic verses or cast aside whole Upanishadic texts because it has alot of adwaitic verses too. Thats where Vashishta-adwaita comes in. It accepts All of the Vedic, Upanishadic and etc. claim of both the Adwaitic and Dwaitic. It is all about what All of the Vedic scriptures say. You can not pick and choose in them. thats what the Adwaitics did before and around Ramanujacharya and others. And, thats what happened after Ramanujacharya passed on, with the dwaita people. They came in chosed the verses that they thought was correct about their particular brake-off group belief. After Madhavacharya left the planet...how many other spin-off philosophies came in?...with each of the new sampradayams and brake-off sampradayams from them...sorry to say. For Vaishnavas...originally, it is the Vedically, Upanishadically backed Vashishta-Adwaita principle which Yamunacharya, devotees before Him and Ramanujacharya all taught that should be upheld. And, Lets not forget, One of the Main facets of the Vashi. Adwai. is that the Super Soul/Vishnu is WITHIN...the Soul, and the Soul within the body. And, that why I follow Vashi.Adwai. and Ramanujacharya, because they both prove my spiritual experiences within mediation (that God is WITHIN the Soul and the soul is a linked PART of God. That God is the foundation of our being. Not this God sitting next to the soul stuff that ISKON/Gaudiya believes) and that it accepts and IS accepted withing All of the Vedic scriptures. The Vashi.Adwai. is back totally by Shastra and Sadhu...Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 16:13, 03 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.134.156 (talk)

[edit] Upanishads

Zeuspitar's point#5. (and #1 to some extent)

  • I'm somewhat puzzled by "11 principal" Upanishads. Only 10 are mukhya.
  • The 13 listed need to be sourced. I think it's more than an ISKCON "concoction", anyway.
  • The section in this article is merely a spin-off of the Muktika Upanishad article. We can do away with it if we develop a proper section on canonical texts (i.e. not just upanishads.) rudra (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure!..Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 12:55, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)

Okay, this business of "13 Vaishnava upanishads" seems to be a modern invention. This link claims that it's due to one Sri Ramachandrendra of the Kanchi mutt. I don't know of a good way to verify this. For now, the section looks dubious, and should probably be replaced with a proper section on classes of canonical texts. rudra (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with replacing it with a better section. I'm not sure where the information comes from either, and have never come across it within Gaudiya Vaishnavism? Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

An interesting data point is the section by MA Mehendale in HCIP Vol.1., p.471ff ("Language and Literature" in The Age of the Upanishads and Sutras). He takes the view of historical development and categorizes Upanishads as follows:

  • Earliest stage, prose works integrated into Brahmanas/Aranyakas: Aitareya, Kausitaki, Taittiriya, Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya and Kena.
  • Pre-Buddhistic, metrical: Katha, Svetasvatara, Mahanarayana, Isa, Mundaka, Prasna
  • Post-Buddhistic, but arguably "vedic": Maitrayaniya, Mandukya.
  • The rest of the corpus, he says, "have very little connection to the Veda. Some of them contain very little that may be called philosophical, and some are more akin to the Puranas and the Tantras than to the Veda. According to their purpose and contents the non-Vedic Upanishads may be divided into six categories: (1) such as present Vedanta doctrines, (2) those which teach Yoga, (3) those extolling the ascetic life, (4) those which glorify Vishnu as the highest deity, (5) those which give the same position to Siva, and (6) the Upanishads of the Saktas and other minor sects."
  • So, it appears that there is some older tradition of categorizing the Upanishads, but Mehandale doesn't give details or cite a source. rudra (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Western Scholars

Zeuspitar's point#6. Can we get a list of scholars who are not Gaudiya/ISKCON? Alternately, are there any specific names you would remove as not being notable enough outside Gaudiya/ISKCON circles? rudra (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure! I will get them within the next couple of days ..Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 12:55, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)
Again, I agree with expanding the list. I don't have the information or time to do this myself. I removed some names a few days ago, of persons who I deemed as less notable than the others. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

There is also one general point to keep in mind here. We need reliable sources. This is because Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If much of the information in the article has been culled from Gaudiya sources only, then we need not only sources from other sampradayas, but also, more importantly, secondary or tertiary sources that identify the important points for us to cite. See this thread for a discussion. rudra (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree! It would be nice if other Vaishnava groups and scholars or even just plain Hindu pandits that could help with this and other articles in wikipedia, for verification purposes. It would be nice if there was a non-bias, all-encompassing group of pandits and researchers from various parts of the Hindu community that are appointed just for this task.I will be contacting some school/brahmachari trained indian pandit/swamis this week, and find others within the hindu community that could help with this, Vaishnava and non-vaish. I am very glad that there is this wonderful open discussion and non-bias action...Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 12:55, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)
We ideally need published texts in English language by scholars of Vaishnavism, or by Vaishnavas who are also scholars. But these are relatively rare in the west. More sources would be good. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Walker, The Hindu World has this bibliography for his entry on "Vaishnavism":

  • SK Aiyangar, Early History of Vaishnavism in South India, Madras 1920
  • RG Bhandarkar, Vaishnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems, Strassburg 1913
  • SK De, Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources, Calcutta 1942
  • WS Deming, Ramdas and the Ramdasis, Calcutta 1928
  • J Gonda, Early Aspects of Vaishnavism, Utrecht 1957
  • AP Karmarkar, Mystic Teachings of the Haridasas of Karnataka, Dharwar 1939
  • GN Mallik, The Philosophy of the Vaishnava Religion, 1927
  • T Rajagopalachariar, Vaishnava Reformers of India, Madras 1909
  • TAG Rao, History of the Sri-Vaishnavas, Madras 1923
  • HC Raychaudhuri, Materials for the Study of the Early History of the Vaishnava Sect, Calcutta 1936

This looks somewhat dated, and oriented towards the history. rudra (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna article and avatar discussion

There is a discussion on Krishna's status as avatar at Krishna and Vishnu avatar discussion. Any comments you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

Ism, I noticed that you added a citation needed tag to the Etymology section. Can you please clarify what part you think is disputable, (1) the etymolgy itself, vaishnava + ism, or (2) the meaning of vaishnava ? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just believe that the statement, "The term Vaishnavism is an English formation obtained by attaching the suffix -ism to Sanskrit Vaishnava (IAST: vaiṣṇava), which is the vriddhi form of Vishnu meaning belonging to, or derived from Vishnu," requires some type of citation that meets the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that is the least problematic statement in the whole page :) ... but adding reference is always useful. I'll find and add in the next few days as I edit and expand the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I didn't mean to be picky, I believe that a source should be cited though and a fact check tag should follow an unreferenced comment. It's always good to have a reference so that when a person looks up an article they have a source to verify the statement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I have added OED as the reference. Abecedare (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements on Vaishnava page

Thanks to every one who made the recent changes to the Vaishnava page. It is alot better than it was before!! I think it is neutral to all Sampradayams and cults of Vaishnavism. It gives a very informative,un-bias account of Vaishnavism to the public. The page looks GREAT. And,I want thank every one for helping to keep free from any "group" or cult slant. I hope that we all can keep an eye out to keep it that way. Love and Namaskar. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion over opening lines of article

The starting line states that it is monothestic but not exclusive. Also Krishna ,Vishnu ,Narayana and Vasudeva are worshipped as supreme forms of God. Pardon me ,maybe my understanding of the English language is of primary level and same is or must be the case with majority of visitors on Wiki, but these opening lines confuse me a lot. According to the dictionary i have, Monotheism is the belief that there is a single God. Now who is the God here. Is it Krishna or Vishnu or both or simultaneous. A bit confusing for me. If they are the forms of god, then who is God. Is it Krishna? or Vishnu? If it is Krishna then why he has a form known as another Krishna? Are there two Krishnas? Is it that for some it is Krishna and for others Vishnu? Then for those for whom it is only Krishna , what is Vishnu for them? Are they all one or different? If they are all gods(i think there are twelve avtaars ,thats all i know though), then shouldn't Pantheism be the right word?I am going haywire thinking about it. Though i know that Krishna and Vishnu are worshipped ,but my knowledge about Hinduism is vague. And believe me, this intro confuses me. If it's beliefs are associated with Vedas ,then what do vedas say about God?A Hindu might understand it, but a non-Hindu gets confused by opening lines (maybe a scholar does not). If a devout Hindu gets upset at my inquiry, then please forgive me and bear my comments and enlighten me on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.141.26 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that author of the above question probably aware, that a very simmilar line of questioning is very often put to adherents of Christian traditions in many places, inclusive of India, or Pune, by their counterparts in Islam. Is it one god or is it three gods and if its three, it must be that there is no one god, therefor Christianity is a polytheism. However despite this apparent misunderstanding Vaishnavism is a monotheistic tradition with history of it spanning longer then any other monotheistic tradition. There are unlimited avataras of Vishnu, Krishna or Narayana (depending on tradition you belong to) and most of Vaishnavas accept all of them as the forms of God. Just as in Christian tradition god appeared in a form of fire to Jacob (thats all I know) - similarly in Vaishnavism, Vishnu appears in many forms on this earth and protects his devotees. Vedas praise Vishnu, Panacaratra praises Vasudeva, Upanishads praise Narayana and Bhagavata Purana praises Krishna as the original, but all are forms of one Supreme Lord, who has many names and forms. Wikidās ॐ 21:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)