| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |
 | This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. | |  GA | This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | |
[edit] 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)
[edit] Krishna - new section
The worship of Krishna is part of Vaishnavism, which regards Vishnu as the supreme god and venerates his associated avatars, their consorts, and related saints and teachers. Krishna is especially looked upon as a full manifestation of Vishnu, and as one with Vishnu himself.[1] However the exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu is complex and diverse,[2] where Krishna is considered an independent deity, supreme in its own right.[3] All Vaishnava traditions recognise Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu; others identify Krishna with Vishnu; while traditions, such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism,[4][5] Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, regard Krishna as the svayam bhagavan, original form of God, or the Lord himself.[6][7][8] [9][10] In the list of the epithets attributed to Krishna, he is described as the 'source of all incarnations' by Rupa Goswami.[11]
This paragraph of the introduction requires an adequate section in the main body of the article explaining the relevant views as per WP:LEAD. As it should be an independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. By the size of the paragraph this issue is probably the most important, thus a prominent section should be created. Wikidās ॐ 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I believe this material should be primarily in the appropriate Vaishnavism categories, with a brief synopsis only here. Imc (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- If the body of the article has a brief synopses, that can be the section that is now the 4th paragraph of the leade. However if the fourth paragraph is retained in the leade, which is more likely to happen, it will require a sizable section. Summary of the lead should be the summary of THIS article, not some 'Vaishnavism categories'. WP:LEAD - summary is... of the sections of this article (did I repeat myself?) .--Wikidās ॐ 21:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I doubt the article needs much more information than what is presented in that paragraph of the lead. I suggest the paragraph be moved to the body of the article, with something like this in the lead: "Krishna is perceived differently within different sects of Hinduism. While all Vaishnava sects recognize him as an avatar of Vishnu, some consider him to be svayam bhagavan, or the original form of the Lord." and maybe a few additional details added to the paragraph if so desired and relevant to the article. --Shruti14 t c s 01:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
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. GizzaDiscuss © 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. GizzaDiscuss © 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)
Y Done --Shruti14 talk • sign 00:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reference 29, Knott - Birth of Krisnha
It is mentioned that Krisnna was conceived without any sexual union. Now, where is it mentioned? Is it explicit? --Karimpuli (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've added a qualification to that statement; since it is not in a standard text, I would think it worth removing to a 'particular beliefs about Krishna' section. Imc (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are sure it is not cited unambigously in a standard test, remove it at once. Thank you.--Karimpuli (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- It is and there are a number of books written linking it to other similar traditions of the middle east. Its a common belief, there is no need to remove it. It should be expanded if anything. Wikidās ॐ 13:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It is there! Where? The Mahabharatha, Bhagavatha, or the Harivamsa? Well, it is anything but a common belief, except perhaps the Harekrishna's, who gleefully sketch all Gopas with blond hair and light eyes; sans the blue Krishna, ofcourse.--Karimpuli (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This belief is not specific to one specific tradition, and is based on interpretation of Bhagavata: [1] ,[2] ,[3] ,[4] ,[5] ,[6] I hardly can hide my despise of your ignorance in the semi-illiterate note above, as the sources speak directly as to Lord entering the mind of Vasudeva (mana ānakadundubheḥ) and then as to extraordinary birth by the transfer (samāhitam) from the mind of Vasudeva to the nivāsa-bhūtā of Devaki, talking about sources:
- bhagavān api viśvātmā
- bhaktānām abhayaṅkaraḥ
- āviveśāṁśa-bhāgena
- mana ānakadundubheḥ
- tato jagan-maṅgalam acyutāṁśaṁ
- samāhitaṁ śūra-sutena devī
- dadhāra sarvātmakam ātma-bhūtaṁ
- kāṣṭhā yathānanda-karaṁ manastaḥ
- sā devakī sarva-jagan-nivāsa-
- nivāsa-bhūtā nitarāṁ na reje
- bhojendra-gehe 'gni-śikheva ruddhā
- sarasvatī jñāna-khale yathā satī
Wikidās ॐ 08:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Wikidas, I don't believe that your reference (only one repeated several times at a quick look) show more than that some Christians have seen a parallel with the birth of Christ. There is no justification for reading a virgin birth into the original texts (of which there are only two or three, quoted above). Since Krishna is an avatara of Vishnu in these, yes there has to be an explanation for the connection between the deity and the birth, but how does this make a woman who has given birth before a virgin? I think this idea properly belongs in the 'other beliefs' section.
- I'll also refer back to my earlier post on 'overuse of references'. Just because there is a reference for something, it does not make it relevant in an article this size.
- Imc (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- The references only needed to items that are disputed or can be questioned as it is the case. Krsna appeared in front of Vasudeva in his four armed form of Vishnu, not as an incarnation but as a full descent. I do not "support" the view that Devaki was a Virgin, I just cite it as a belief. The fact is that according to Vaishnava beliefs, Krishna is not taking a material form, thus Devaki is a divine spiritual figure, not just "a virgin" of some christian traditions, fact that they want to see it as a very popular belief. However sources give Krishna a divine birth and certainly not regular one. Wikidās ॐ 12:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, references are needed for points that are disputed (as is the case here) and those citations themselves should be incontestable. I hardly believe that is the case here. Devaki is described as wife to Vishnu! As regards my "semi-illiteracy", well I can not bring myself to "despise" a deaf man who believes everyone around him is dumb.--Karimpuli (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- I have added more sources to the article,[7] incidentally in the following verse Devaki IS described looking or appearing like Sarasvati. Its not a question of your belief, its what the source state. Wikidās ॐ 16:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I have looked through the ISKCON translation of the Bhagavatam; this translation has the usual ISKCON idiosyncracies, but it is quite clear that it does not say that there was no sexual union [8], in fact it says that Krishna was born to Devaki and Vasudeva. Imc (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry where does this sectarian source provides for the assumption? Are you saying this source states that 'no sexual union' is not the belief of the authors team? [9]Wikidās ॐ 08:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- OK, let me spell this out; the Bhaktivedanta Srimad Bhagavatam at [10] which includes a translation of a primary text, the Bhagavata Purana says -
-
-
- Vasudeva also begot eight highly qualified sons through the womb of Devakī. . These included .... Kṛṣṇa.
-
- It thus contradicts the statement currently in the article
-
-
- According to Bhagavata Purana Krishna, ... was born without a sexual union, by "mental transmission" from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki.
-
- The references given for this statement are two books by Knott and Bryant, which are not online as far as I can see. Considering the level of contradiction, you need to quote the actual text to justify the statement that the Bhagavatam can be interpreted as they suggest. Even then, it would only be an interpretation, not a translation.
-
- Your previous references, quoted in this talk page, e.g. [11] do not even describe beliefs; they are just works that include phrases such as 'the Virgin Devaki', sometimes with a reference to a similar source, but without any reference to a primary source. The reason for this language can be seen in their desire to show a similarity between the stories of Krishna and Jesus, and by extending the concept of the virginity of Mary to Devaki, to try to make the similarity seem stronger. They do not support the statements in the Wikipedia article. Imc (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not know why you are going thought interpretation of the sectarian source by A.C. Bhaktivedanta and is going trough you mind, since an academic translation is linked to Google books from the reference, but it you want just read what A.C. Bhaktivedanta said specifically on this point here is a quote from the same source - it is explicit.
tato jagan-mańgalam acyutāḿśaḿ samāhitaḿ śūra-sutena devī dadhāra sarvātmakam ātma-bhūtaḿ kāṣṭhā yathānanda-karaḿ manastaḥ
TRANSLATION
Thereafter, accompanied by plenary expansions, the fully opulent Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-auspicious for the entire universe, was transferred from the mind of Vasudeva to the mind of Devakī. Devakī, having thus been initiated by Vasudeva, became beautiful by carrying Lord Kṛṣṇa, the original consciousness for everyone, the cause of all causes, within the core of her heart, just as the east becomes beautiful by carrying the rising moon.
PURPORT
As indicated here by the word manastaḥ, the Supreme Personality of Godhead was transferred from the core of Vasudeva's mind or heart to the core of the heart of Devakī. We should note carefully that the Lord was transferred to Devakī not by the ordinary way for a human being, but by dīkṣā, initiation.
—Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.2.18
And Bryant source is clearly available online (with the link provided) plus more at Amazon.com with the explanation of the footnote which is very clear. Knott's particular page is not available online now. There is nothing to discuss about on this, a belief and clearly evidenced statement supported by both sectarian and academic translation of the primary source. Move on Imc, its a belief. Wikidās ॐ 20:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removed sentence
"Devotees of Krishna maintain that according to Bhagavad Gita, Krishna is completely spirit and has no material body, thus his birth is only 'an appearance' in accordance with their interpretation of the Gita 4.6 and 7.24."[12]
- The sentence is not clear and also confusing to a non-Hindu. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
What is confusing here for non-Hindus ? If non-Hindus cannot understand Sanskrit properly, it is their fault. The very word (re)incarnation (to come in flesh) is a misnomer for the word avatara. The understaning of birth itself in Hinduism assumes pre-existing jIvAtmas or souls of living creatures taking upa physical body, while Ishvara's of God's avataras do NOT ever take up physical bodies. A particular Form of God simply becomes visible and this is called as "birth" only for namesake.
Concept of Ishvara alias God in Bhagavad Gita or even Vedas (Isavasya Upanishad) is that God is an omnipresent imperishable or undecaying eternal spirit. FORMS of God like Krishna etc. are also omnipresent imperishable or undecaying eternal spirit, i.e. God's Form is identically God Himself.
Hinduism has a concept of jivAtma or spirit, subject to both subtle body (linga deha) or psychic body and gross body (sthula sharira). The jivAtma is enveloped by the other two bodies. This is the case for human beings. The real identity of all created living beings is that they are jIvAtma.
In the case of Ishvara alias viSNu or any of His avataras, the outer envelopes of subtle and gross bodies are eternally absent, even in His avataras. That is why He is not subject to Karmas like jivAtmas who possess body and are subject to birth and death, while Ishvara is never subject to such limitations as jIvAtma.
Now coming to the Bhagavad Gita verses. Please read the verses with some understanding and change the article appropriately.
ajo api sann avyayatma bhutanam isvaro 'pi san prakrtim svaam adhishthaya sambhavamy atma-maayaya (Gita 4-6)
ajah--unborn; api--though; san--being so; avyaya--imperishable; atma--Self or Spirit; bhutanam--all living beings( those who are born); isvarah--the Supreme Lord or controller; api--although; san--being so; prakrtim svaam--My own essential nature(of being without material/subtle body); adhishthaya--being so situated or established; sambhavami--I manifest Myself; atma-maayaya--Power or Wisdom or Consciousness of HimSelf.
Although I am Unborn, of imperishable Spirit (as in body, soul and spirit i.e. Krishna says HE has no material/subtle body), though I am Lord of all living beings, established in MY OWN ESSENTIAL NATURE(Purna=complete and perfect Spiritual nature without material/subtle body), I manifest Myself through MY OWN Power.
Note: 1. This verse clearly points to Krishna is Complete and Perfect Brahma or Purna Atma without any material body or subtle body(soul).
2. The use of words "Prakrtim Svaam" is significant in this verse.
a. "Sva" as in svabhaava refers to one's own essential nature or attribute(honesty etc.) as opposed to something one possesses, like a house, car etc.
b. Krishna clearly uses "mayaa adhyakshena prakrtih" in verse 9:10 when HE refers to Material Universe under HIS control. Here the word mayaa is used in the possessive sense like that of a house, car etc. that is under one's control.
Thus it is very clear that Krishna has no material body(human body) or subtle body(soul consisting of mind, emotions etc.)
avyaktam vyaktim apannam manyante mam abuddhayah param bhavam ajananto mamavyayam anuttamam(Bhagavad Gita 7:24)
avyaktam--unmanifest, transcendental to matter, that which lacks body and Karmic effects; vyaktim--Manifest or refers to human beings or living beings with body; pannam--has become; manyante--think; mam--of Me; abuddhayah--Unintelligent persons; param--supreme; bhavam--state of being; ajanantah--without knowing; mama--My; avyayam--imperishable; anuttamam--Unsurpassable.
The word vyaktim=created living being that possesses subtle and gross bodies as explained above and not just visible manifestation.
Unintelligent people think of me, the unmanifest(transcendental to all matter), as having become created living being, without knowing My imperishable and unsurpassable state of being.
Shri Krushna already is visible to human beings. Hence the abuddhayah=Unintelligent persons who sees this visible form think that the visible Shri Krushna has become human being, with a material body without knowing that HIS form or RUPA is imperishable and unsurpassable(unlimited). This is what the verse says.
Read the next verse as well. Note the use of the word "ajam" here which means "unborn". Bhagavad Gita is very clear that Shri Krishna does not possess physical body. One who possesses physical body cannot be called as "ajam" or "unborn". Birth itself means pre-existing soul assuming a physical body.
nāhaḿ prakāśaḥ sarvasya yoga-māyā-samāvṛtaḥ mūḍho 'yaḿ nābhijānāti loko mām ajam avyayam (Bhagavad Gita 7:25)
na — nor; aham — I; prakāśaḥ — manifest; sarvasya — to everyone; yoga-māyā — by my potency/power; samāvṛtaḥ — concealed/enveloped; mūḍhaḥ — foolish; ayam — these; na abhijānāti — do not know; lokaḥ — persons; mām — Me; ajam — unborn; avyayam — imperishable/undecaying.
Being enveloped by my power, I am not manifest or visible to everyone. Hence the foolish or ignorant do not know Me who am unborn and imperishable.
I also request the editors of this article to read Isavasya Upanishad verses 8 and 16 especially from the following link.
http://www.dvaita.org/sources/shruti/translation.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.193.237 (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- If non-Hindus cannot understand Sanskrit properly, it is their fault.
- This is English encyclopedia, thus the medium should be clear English not Hindi or Sanskrit or Hebrew. However the sentence above is quite clear and if it is 'confusing' then it should be expanded, so there is no reason to remove it. Wikidās ॐ 08:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- The word death was replaced by disappearance. A discussion on this talk on this topic reaching a consensus against use of disappearance, is available. The very ref provided by anon about the Mahabharata mentions "The hunter, mistaking Keshava, who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey.", thus just saying "While Vyasa's Mahābhārata says Krishna ascended to heaven assuming His divine form" is the half-truth.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
While it is true that Vyasa's Mahābhārata talks about hunter piercing the leg, does it talk about death of Krishna or even anything aabout body of Krishna ? The answer is NO. The article was corrected because Vyasa's Mahābhārata DOES NOT mention anything about death of Shri Krishna or even being mortally wounded at all. So this is false. Does anybody die immediately because they were shot in their heals ? Did you notice the same Vyasa's Mahābhārata says that the hunter saw Shri Krishna in multiarmed Form ?
By the way which Purana mentions about Shri Krishna's death ? Quote me one verse which says "Krishna died" anywhere. When you use the words "According to Puranas" you better come up with the exact reference from Puranas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.193.237 (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way did you understand anything about Bhagavad Gita verses which confirm Shri Krishna being bodiless and completely spirit. The problem with you editors is that you have no knowledge of Sanskrit language and yet think that you know better to be editors on subjects you have no understanding of.
Please make note I want the exact Sanskrit verse which says "Krishna died" or anything like that ?
-
- There is no concept in Bhagavad Gita on kṛṣṇa being bodyless. he does not have a material body, but he has a body AND he is also avyakta mūrti, ananta rūpa - I think the problem with anons is that they lack the experience of team work of Wikipedia. There are hundereds of ways one can translate a verse. Selecting the reliable translation is the key. Wikidās ॐ 15:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
[native code]
} way
Ok...when I says bodiless, I mean without prakrita sharira. I did not say Krishna has NO FORM, which you call as body, which is spiritual in nature. This is my point as well. So do you agree Krishna did NOT die ? What do you mean reliable translation ? People here have no knowledge of Sanskrit. How can they even know which is reliable ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.193.237 (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Exactly, since we do not know that you know sanskrit and you do not not know what we know we rely on wp:reliable sources and translations that are accepted or reviewed by academics, not on your understanding of what is sarira and what is mūrti and what is vigraha. In fact kṛṣṇa has a form and has a body, he has senses and the mind and he has feelings, being bhagavan and sat cit ānanda at the same time. Being absolute, there is no difference between his body and his form and his self and his .... anything. Wikidās ॐ 15:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough.
and who are these academics ? Why don't you list what are these reliable sources in this context ? Since you and I agree on the nature of Krishna, why do authors here remove my correction ? Are you one of wiki editors here ? Then the question remains, why the usage of words "Krishna's death" when reference is made to Puranas and itihaasas.
If there is no difference between His body and form, then why say "In fact kṛṣṇa has a form and has a body" ? This is all unnecessary verbose for the topic. Please come back to the topic if you are an editor here..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.193.237 (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- Not every editor or in fact every reader will recognize that kṛṣṇa has never died, since we have a section on his birth we have it also on his death. if you find academic or otherwise reliable sources that support the view that some believe that he never died - this view should be reflected in the article. however it should be noted that unless one is of a particular religion, one may not accept is as a given fact, therefor such religious fact should always have a source that confirms that such belief exists. Otherwise a statement that kṛṣṇa has never died will be challenged as simply untrue (while because I belong to a religion that would agree with this as fact I can understand you). Therefore go to google scholar and find a reference that clearly states that in mahabhārata there is no mention of kṛṣṇas death because he never died. Otherwise you just give a chance to others to ridicule yourself. It is not a religious text, is a wikipedia. Wikidās ॐ 16:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Since the editors made a note that "According to Puranas, Krishna's death...." the onus is on the particular editor to show a Sanskrit verse from Puranas that says "Krishna died" or something like that. Until then the use of word death in this context is false. On the other hand, I have shown many verses from Bhagavad Gita which explicitly say Krishna has no body. I have no idea why these verses should be neglected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.193.237 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- This section of the article describes the avatara. Krishna was born as a man; he was an incarnation; therefore he died. Otherwise he would not be incarnate, he would be something else. Now if there are works that say that he was fully divine and not incarnated as a man, that account should be placed elsewhere in the article, not in the section that describes the story of the incarnation. As for any non occurrence of the word 'death' in connection with Krishna, that can reasonably be described as an euphemism, and these should not be used in Wikipedia. For comparison, my nearest copy of the Mahabharata (Narasimhan's translation) says of the Pandavas and Draupadi, that each 'fell down', not that they died. Imc (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say anywhere that avatara = reincaration ? Is this not an assumption by people here ? When Mahbharatha does say that Pandavas fell down, it does not sa they assumed any divine form as well, unlike the case of Shri Krishna. When Mahabharatha especially says Shri Krishna assumed a divine form and makes no mention of death, unlike the case of balarama where it is clearly and explicitly said that Balarama discarded his body through yoga, whereas for Krishna no such thing is said, it is clear no death is meant here and that Krishna did not have a material body, especially when Gita verses quoted above show that to be the case.
Also note the following explicit verses in Mahabhartha which says Krishna's birth or Rama's birth is NOT like other being's birth.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05070.htm
"Sanjaya said, 'The auspicious names (of Kesava) have been previously heard by me..............
That conqueror of hosts is called Aja, or unborn', because he hath not taken his birth from any being in the ordinary way.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03099.htm
"Lomasa said, 'Listen, O king, to the history of Rama (the son of Dasaratha) and Rama of Bhrigu's line gifted with intelligence. For the destruction of Ravana, O king, Vishnu, in his own body, took his birth as the son of illustrious Dasaratha.
Note the verse saying "not taken his birth from ANY being" and "Vishnu, in his own body, took his birth as the son of illustrious Dasaratha". These words clearly show that none of viSNu's avatara have material bodies and hence cannot die.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.193.237 (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- If I may be so bold as to present my tidbit: Krishna was indeed, according to texts, a material form, in addition to divinity. His soul was the body that you speak of, as the soul is immortal, as per most of the texts (read through any of them that discuss the soul and you shall find it). All of Vishnu's avatarams are, therefore, reincarnations, because they are the going of his one, very divine soul into human body (the divine soul therefore giving the supernatural powers we see in the texts) to fulfill their purposes. As far as the "not taken his birth from any being", it continues on to say "in the ordinary way," which, translated by the yogis and self-realized saints in India, means He knew of all things a self-realized person should know (meaning, what God should know) from the time he entered the womb as a seed. That is all I wish to say, but should there be anything you wish for me to add, I can ;) BlackPearl14talkies! 03:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- You guys (incl IP) are expressing unsourced beliefs. We need to reflect them with the section, since we are talking about a Hindu deity, points of 'death' of the deity should be reflected in the article. We need sources for that. I have added:
- According to Puranic sources[13], Krishna's death marks the end of Dvapara Yuga and the start of Kali Yuga, which is dated to February 17/18, 3102 BCE.[14] Vaiṣṇava teachers such as Ramanujacharya and followers of Caitanya Mahaprabhu held the view that the body of Krishna is completely spiritual and never decays as this appears to be the perspective of the Bhagavata Purana. Krishna never appears to grow old or age at all in the historical depictions of the Puranas despite passing of several decades, but there are grounds for a debate whether this indicates that he has no material body, since battles and other descriptions of the Mahabhārata epic show clear indications that he seems to be a subject to the limitation of nature.[15]Wikidās ॐ 08:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- My source? Okay, here: The Bhagawad Gita, a translation by Paramahamsa Yogananda. I did not write it in sourcing form, because I wanted to get your okay first. In addition, and in concurrance with Wikidas, the Puranas do prove that Krishna was in material body (see the battles?). BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!]20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- So how a sectarian author of a prominent but not mainstream faith in Hinduism, has become the reliable source? Maybe for his sect's beliefs, but otherwise you need academic sources, not primary like Bg. Bg is not about the life of Krishna anyway, its a theological work subject to interpretation and (as the case may be) misinterpretation. Wikidās ॐ 23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- He's not a sectarian author, Wikidas. If you'd read his autobiography, you'd know that it says he is a Hindu. Either way, it's in support of your statement ;) BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!]19:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Who is to say who is sectarian or not sectarian ? Is it not a subjective decision you are making here ? Your argument about battles is very weak. Krishna appears to do many things apparently and one should not take mere statements about battle to decide whether He has body or not. Bhagavat Gita is Krishna's own word.
You were saying the soul is what the body refers to in case of Shri Rama's avataram. Read the statement again.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03099.htm
"Lomasa said, 'Listen, O king, to the history of Rama (the son of Dasaratha) and Rama of Bhrigu's line gifted with intelligence. For the destruction of Ravana, O king, Vishnu, in his own body, took his birth as the son of illustrious Dasaratha.
The verse clearly states that viSNu comes in HIS own body, which implies He does NOT take any other body. Otherwise the statement itself is superfluous as we know well all beings come in their own body (ie. soul) as per your understanding. Your meaning of the verse, actually makes the very statement useless information.
The purpose of Lomasa's statement is to bring out difference between birth of other ordinary beings and avatara of viSNu. Your meaning completely misses the point and is obviously wrong. Besides note the following verse also where Shri Krishna is said to be without deterioration.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05130.htm
Knowest thou not sinless Govinda, of terrible prowess and incapable of deterioration?
If the above statement means only Soul of Krishna being without deterioration, then that is true for all beings. The purpose of above statement is again, like Loamasa's statement on Shri Rama, to bring out differences between viSNu's avatara and birth of other beings.
Besides there are clear statements from Puranas which also say the same thing regarding avataras being without material body.
Garuda Purana
http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/ebene_1/fiindolo/gretil/1_sanskr/3_purana/garup3_u.htm
tadrūpamāhuḥ prākṛtaṃ vai tadajñā hyandhaṃ tamaḥ praviśantyeva sarve // GarP_3,3.2 //
Those who consider that form to be indeed material, such knowers certainly enter pitch darkness.
avatārā mahāviṣṇoḥ sarve pūrṇāḥ prakīrtitāḥ / pūrṇaṃ ca tatparaṃ rūpaṃ pūrṇātpūrṇāḥ samudgatāḥ // GarP_3,3.3 //
All avatars of viSNu are perfect and complete. Perfect is that supreme Form. Perfection begets perfection.
Inspite of all these if you people here keep making false statements on Puranas and itihaasas, based on faulty understanding and faulty logic from scriptures, then there is nothing else to do for me here. Ignorance is bliss for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.63.70 (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Krishna/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): - I would like to see the lead somewhat longer, and better summarize the article. At minimum, the biography and worship should be mentioned in a lot greater detail. The lead can be twice the current length if possible. There are a number of one- (or two-) sentence paragraphs. These should be merged with other paragraphs. I believe I have addressed this issue through my copyedit—that also fixed the MoS errors. Take a look at the diff of my edit to learn some systematic errors; these included quotes in italics, mixing of BCE/CD and BC/AD (choose one), forced image size, use of a hyphen (-) instead of an emdash (—) for punctuation, and the odd capitalization. Under the performing section, this sentence in uncomprehensable: "Kathak dancer, Shovana Narayan explores Lucknow gharana of Kathak has several performances based on Krishna's life."
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Not all the references are properly wrapped into {{cite}} templates.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- I believe the matters discussed on the talk page have been addressed.
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- A comprehenisve and interesting article; if fixed to match the comments on the lead, the performing arts and the cite template it should pass GA. Arsenikk (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the references, will take atleast 3 days to rectify.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Removed "Kathak dancer, Shovana Narayan explores Lucknow gharana of Kathak has several performances based on Krishna's life." as UNDUE to the artist. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Templates cite book, cite web, cite journal used.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- expanded lead, biography is covered by "a god-child, a prankster, a model lover, a divine hero and the Supreme Being."--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Great :) Congratulations with a Good Article! Arsenikk (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] krishna and arjun
krishna and arjun was very true friends for each other. when arjun was in sorrow in battelfield of kurukshetra than krishna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkdixit (talk • contribs) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
