Talk:Dashavatara

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Daśāvatāra)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hinduism / Vaishnavism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Vaishnavism (marked as High-importance).
 

Evolution and Dasavatara[edit]

The content given in this section does not carry enough citations. There is no direct citation to prove that J. B. S. Haldane suggested the similarities between the evolution and the Avatarams. Subsequent, line summarises the link from American Chronicle by Dr. Nitish Priyadarshi.

The language used in the section is more of POV than facts. Please try to give more citations and original links to the section.rams81 (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The ten incarnations of God in the form of human are interpreted much later than the ones (twenty eight, representing 28 moon days) slated by Veda Vyasa’s Bhagavatham in 1500 BC. I think that it includes his thoughts on the basic theory of evolution (starting from Fish to civilized human). Interestingly, Lord Budha born in 500 BC, and was not part of the ten incarnations of God. Later, either Sathavanas or Guptas replaced Lord Balarama with Lord Bhuda to bring harmony among fighting religions and it made sense as there were two incarnations, Lord Krishna and Lord Balarama, in the same period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisapatis (talkcontribs) 15:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Already Exists[edit]

The content here already exists at Dashavatara#Avatars. Unless more is to be included, is there a need for a separate article? 71.158.184.18 (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

More is to 'be included'. Wikidās ॐ 23:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This is covered in Avatar article. Advocate a merge.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree it should be merged,or just redirected. The merge notice was removed without discussion. I am replacing it. It appears that some editors are trying to offer sort of minority views in this article instead of editing the Avatar article. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is more material here that can fit there. I see this article with much more material that can possibly fit in more generic avatara article. Wikidās ॐ 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors, we have been hearing for some time that Dasavatar would be an important topic on its own. Right now there is very little to distinguish it from the dasavatar section of Avatar. I vote to merge the article back into Avatar, and create a separate topic when the section in Dasavatar grows big enough to warrant it. Nemonoman (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It mainly important because the template heading is the same as the article. The information in the article on avatara should not be UNDUE, so variations and different readings and evolution of the concept is better kept in this article. You have already voted Nemonoman, but maybe you can suggest how all different sections can be merged without loosing the essence or quite intricate variations. I will add a little section to the history of it as well and will add main to the top of the article, because its a sub-article. Wikidās ॐ 13:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll lay off for a while, seeing that you are developing this article. Good luck! --Nemonoman (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

High Importance Rating[edit]

Can someone help me understand why Dashavatara of Vishnu has just received a HIGH importance rating? The page didn't even exist 4 months ago, and is barely more than an a copy and paste of the Dashavatar section of Avatar. It's my impression that most topics of high importance have been in existence for a much longer period of time. The Dashavatar section of the Avatar article has not been expanded for many months, and at this point it would be hard to justify breaking it out into a larger article. Dashavatara of Vishnu has been the subject of a merge request since late May, and that seems a more reasonable fate than a High importance rating. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The article name and spelling[edit]

The article name has been changed from Dashavatara to Dasavatara. This is not right according to any recognised consistent transliteration, or is it? Imc (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a SS article of the main avatara article and follows the spelling there. Also see: Find sources: "dasavatara" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Wikidās ॐ 05:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My question was not whether it was sourced or common, it was whether it was a 'good' consistent transliteration. Having looked since at Monier Williams, ten is dazan (according to the transliteration they use there) which would be daśan in IAST and dashan in a simplified form. Imc (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In any case, I suggest that this title would be better translated into English; The Ten Incarnations of Vishnu. Imc (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
That is not how its best know, there is a template that should link here as well the names should be coordinated too. Wikidās ॐ 16:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Dashavatara reditects here so nothing is lost. There is more than one way to spell Sanskrit terms. It is based on sound and more than one way are right. Incidentally this article is now in three other languages. I do not agree it should be eliminated or is of low importance. It will slowly grow. There is more on this subject. Timegogo (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Will remove POV from the title, its Dasavatara or Vishnu and that of Krishna, so the article name should be Dasavatara. Wikidās ॐ 22:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I personally have no objection to such a move if there are no other objections. A quick check of Pages that link to Dasavatara of Vishnu shows it is mostly redirects anyway: Cott12 (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing Merge Tag[edit]

I think this article should stay. This is how it looked in May when it was tagged for merger: Look here. It has obviously expanded and will continue to expand and is important enough to be in 3 other languages as mentioned above. I am removing the tag to merge as there has been no consensus to merge in 2 and a half months of discussion. Cott12 (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this. I am seeing the expansion as well. Time to close this discussion. --nemonoman (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lord Venkateshwara is an Avatara of Lord Vishnu in Kaliyuga..[edit]

Lord Venkateshwara is known to be the 9th Avatara of Lord Vishnu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.245.230 (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


The "Islamic" avatars of Vishnu![edit]

Hello, I'm referring to this article:https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dashavatara_of_Vishnu#In_other_religions

How can one actually include this section within the 10 avatars of Vishnu?

I fail to understand the logic here. I'm deleting this section. Please explain why it should be included since:

  1. it only represents vague fringe views of Islamists
  2. Siddiq Hussain, one of the guys referenced is the leader of a movement called "Deendar Anjuman".

How can his views be taken seriously? Here for example: http://frontierindia.scriptmania.com/FNV13PAGE10.htm

What next? Maybe we could include one more section with the claim that Christ was also one of the avatars of Vishnu along with Abraham and Zoraster!

I'm deleting this section. Please discuss in the talk page if you think it is worthy of inclusion and substantiate your claims. freewit (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There are references to dasavatara in different religions. However due to structure of Hindu thought, one should understand that some views will not be maintained by a majority of Hindu followers. Section needs to be rewritten. Yes there quite a few movements over the last few centuries, where Muslim views and views of Hindu, as well as Christian views are intermixed in Hindu perspective. There is nothing wrong with that. Wikidās ॐ 11:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Freewit. The inclusion of such ideas as Bahai versions of Avatar speculation, or Muhammad/Kalki speculation, is doubtful. These are the musings of a few individuals, and they might be of value in the Avatar article -- I emphasize Might be -- but this is about Dasavatar of Vishnu, yes? Scarcely mainstream or even minority Hindu version of Dasavatara: Fringe thinking at best, and not noteworthy enough for the section as written. You've taken the lead in this article, Wikidas, and I will expect you to take this critique seriously and correct it, or we'll end up with me "being bold" and correcting it my way, which is likely to be much less subtle and much more messy. --nemonoman (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would you keep here and not include even a reference in this article. I want to see exactly how similar views should be reflected in the article. I have no difficulty in reaching a compromise here, if one is on the plate. Wikidās ॐ 13:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't be expected to defend the indefensible views of those crazy people. They believe what they believe. All I did was put them in alphabetical order. Those views have relevance -- MAYBE -- to Avatar, not to Dasavatara. If you want me to delete them, I will.

If we are talking only about the "10 avatars of Vishnu" then what has Islam and the Bahai views to do with Vishnu? This "other religions" view should be removed from the "10 avatars of Vishnu" and perhaps moved to a newer section. This will only end up confusing the laymen out there....freewit (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The content should be moved to Avatar article and wikilinked from this one. Wikidās ॐ 06
34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Really hate to touch the article, but this has not been deleted "The founders of Bahai faith have accepted a number of prophets as manifestations of God in much of the same way.[15]" (despite our discussions). So, I'm deleting it.freewit (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to nondiacritic form for these articles this article. Several alternatives have been presented for this particular article (Dasavatara, Dashavatara) so please pick an appropriate one. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

DaśāvatāraDashavatara — Relisted. Ucucha 17:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC) WP:ENGLISH states that "regulated use of diacritics regarding Ireland-related articles – peacefully – before, during and after an extensive dispute on the question of diacritics in 2005, e.g. Inishmore, not Inis Mór; Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich". Similar issues still in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology) where Thor is preferred to Þórr. The same applies also to Sanskrit diacritics. Removal of diacritics in the article title was implemented in Hinduism-related articles like Mahabharata, Kali and Garuda in the past. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: The list is not-exhaustive. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought this issue was already extensively discussed, and the consensus arrived at was that except for articles where there is a single and very widespread "ASCII spelling" (like Mahabharata, Ramayana, etc., and even Kali although it (काली) can be confused with कलि), we would use the proper spelling with diacritics. (Thus effectively, though not as a rule, most "popular" articles would be at ASCII titles (Shiva not Śiva) and "technical" articles would have diacritics.) In particular renaming Bhaṭṭikāvya to Bhattikavya seems entirely pointless; it's a highly technical work having to do with Pāṇini's grammar. (Did you notice that the Irish consensus says "Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich"?) In any case, the ASCII title in every case redirects to the article, so readers can always find them. What would be the point of these moves? Shreevatsa (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The point is: Kashmir is never spelt Kaśmir or Jyotisha as Jyotiṣa or Dashavatara as Daśāvatāra in Indian English (not sure about other English; exception: religious "scholar"'s books). Why do we confuse an IAST (Sanskrit diacritics) illiterate person with scholarly jargon-type IAST? Why not use not simple English spellings instead? Note: Tomás Ó Fiaich is the name of a person, as in Irish. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Neither Mahabharata or Ramayana is the single meaning, they are only widespread. Alternate spellings: Mahabharat, Mahabharatha (South India), Mahabharath; Ramayan. Also in response to "What would be the point of these moves?": the answer is same as "why have Shiva not Śiva?" --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the use in modern Indian English? Clearly these terms have a specific connection to India, in which case it is permissable for the articles to be written (and named) in Indian English, as a national variety of English. What do reliable sources written in Indian English use? Skinsmoke (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I found this newspaper Times of India article online [1] which uses Dashavatara, not Daśāvatāra. News articles using Jyotish as a first name or as astrology: [2], Ankush as a first name [3], Ishta Devata [4]. For Kashmir Shaivism: the name is derived from two words: the region Kashmir (the disputed region between India, Pakistan and China) and the sect Shaivism, both articles are non-IAST titles. It may be noted English newspapers, published in India, use Anglicized spellings and almost never IAST (none that I have ever read).--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
One can see articles at Times of India: Spirituality site: eg. [5]: non-IAST spellings are used for deity names as well as texts and philosophical concepts.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The case for a move appears to be strengthening. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree to the case for renaming it to normal Indian English spelling. However, I don't accept the spelling "Dashavatara". A more closer spelling is Dasavatara. Sh is usually associated with ष and not श. A google search for Dasavathar shows up 61,500 results against 454,000 results for Dasavatar. I don't suggest the South Indian style Dasavatharam since it can confuse with the Tamil film of the same name. rams81 (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

IAST Śiva is Anglicized as Shiva/Shiv (श), NOT Siva. By the same logic, Daśāvatāra should be Dashavatara/Dashavatar.

  • Dashavatar used by The Hindu with 61,700 hits, but Dashavatar has already the film article about the ten incarnations and the hits may include film hits too. Ref: [6]. Anyway throughout wikipedia the article names are: Ganesha, Shiva etc. not Ganesh, Shiv, so I suggested Dashavatara.
  • Dashavatara: 37,500 [7]
  • Dasavatar: 455,000 [8] with "Did you mean: Dashavatar", many of these hits are somehow related to the Kamal Hasan starter movie Dasavatharam.
  • Dasavatara: 52,400 [9] where Daśāvatāra becomes Dasavatara (due to unavailability of diacritics?? or laziness???) like section "Jayadevas Dasavatara Stotra" in this article.--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
All Dasavatara also appears in South Indian (Tamil-based) pronunciations, though it is a Sh in Sanskrit. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
"South Indian" is not equivalent to "Tamil", you know. :P All three of Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam have distinct s, ś, and ṣ, as do most Indian languages (though in some, like Bengali, the distinction often disappears when spoken but is still reflected in spelling). Tamil is the only one that uses the same letter for seven different sounds! Shreevatsa (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there is widespread general English usage of a particular spelling, use the IAST form. This will resolve some of the issues being discussed immediately above as well. — AjaxSmack 02:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
It should noted that Ganesha (now FA) has alternate spellings: Ganesh and Ganesa, still the name is in Indian English. Guna, Ishta-devata, Bhattikavya have no alternate spellings (At least any I know). Kashmir Shaivism is an amalgamation of 2 Indian English words. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per proof that Indian English does not use the diacritics, and that common English in the rest of the English-world usually doesn't use diacritics in any case. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the move to the following name "Dasavatar" rams81 (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Dashavatar, and suggest move of Dashavatar to Dashavatar (film). --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Support Dashavatara too as per Shreevasta's observation. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: Especially the dropping of final 'a's! This is not the place to have a discussion about diacritics in titles in general. For now, I'll just note that whether "Dashavatara" is really a "simple English spelling" (it is impossible to decide how to read it, if one doesn't already know) depends on what the audience is — for a general English-speaking audience that is non-Indian, the most helpful spelling consistent with English orthography might be something like "Thush-aw-uh-tawra", but obviously that would be absurd. Also, note that Google Books has 757 results for Daśāvatāra and 625 for Dashavatara (and only 379 and 361 without the 'a's). Newspapers etc. are not a proper metric because they often lack the technology for diacritics, are often full of mistakes, and cater to the uh, "lowest common denominator". (To pick a random example that comes to mind, almost every newspaper would print either "Paul Erdos" or "Paul Erdös", but we still have the article at the proper spelling Paul Erdős.) Shreevatsa (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
It should be noted that Hungarian "Paul Erdős" is a proper name and spelt the same in its country of origin, while Daśāvatāra is almost never used in Indian English spellings, as noted Dashavatara/Dashavatar are used.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Dasavatara has 766 hits. Besides, newspapers like The Hindu or The Times of India don't lack the technology for diacritics -- you'll find plenty of foreign words with diacritics in these newspapers. Also, English newspapers in India don't cater to the "lowest common denominator" -- on the contrary, they cater to the most educated masses. If the diacritics are a part of the language's native script, it's a different thing altogether (as in Paul Erdős) -- IAST, on the other hand is just one of the several Devanagari transliteration schemes, and not some kind of official standard mandated by the Government of India or any other regulatory body. For the wide majority of the Wikipedia readers (who are not scholars writing their PhD theses), a non-diacritic spelling is more helpful. As for pronunciation, {{Pronunciation}} suffices. I agree with not dropping the final schwa, though. utcursch | talk 18:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion listed on India and Hinduism noticeboard. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to a non-diacritic spelling, preferably Dasavatara. See my comment above. utcursch | talk 18:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to non-diacritic spelling, Dasavatara, per utcursch. Or to Dashavatara. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to non-diacritic spelling, I'd go a step ahead and say that more WP:Hinduism articles be added to the list. I thought after the "Mahabharat" over Mahabharata move, things would organically take their course, I'm glad though that someone has taken the charge to clean things up! Local spellings should always take precedent over non-local usage. --Ekabhishektalk 11:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, move to "Dashavatara". --TheMandarin (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move what?[edit]

I was just about to observe here that the poll has become confusing (most people are voting about this page Daśāvatāra/Dashavatara only), when I see it has been closed, and (mis?)interpreted as consensus to move all articles. I feel there has not been enough discussion about the issue in general. (FWIW, my "oppose" vote above for the general point, and I also support moving this article.) Shreevatsa (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Though the other articles were not specifically mentioned (and I did think about that), I interpreted the comments as applying to all these articles (i.e., that the non-diacritcal form is preferred). I'll leave it up to you guys to figure out whether the consensus applies to all articles or only to this one. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I will create separate move requests. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
When I voted, I meant for this article alone. I think we should not generalise it for all the articles and each topic should be dealt with on a case to case basis. Names like Ramayana, Mahabharatha, Dasavatara, Rama, Krishna, Jyotisha are very common and we need not use diacritcal forms for these. Where there will be names that contain more vowels and are uncommon, say Raja UttAnapAda where diacritcal forms may be used. So my vote to support a Move to Dasavatara is specific to this article. rams81 (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Good point. Though this is rough, let me sketch the argument about diacritics in general. In short, the argument for them is that they are precise and unambiguous (and possibly "professional"), and the argument against them is that they are unfamiliar and confusing. Now, our goal is to be most helpful to the readers, and we must also consider who the readers of a particular article are. It is certainly the case that using diacritics can often clarify many things: for instance, even with only the idea that long vowels have a bar over them — which I had cottoned on to before I knew the entire convention, and which I suspect others would have as well, and in any case takes a moment to get — it is clear that the son of Vasudeva is Vāsudeva, that Rāma is a male name and Ramā a female one, etc. A panini is a sandwich Italian, while Pāṇini is a Sanskrit grammarian. In all these cases, the "ASCII" spelling is not very different; it would simply drop the diacritics. I don't think a few extra ornamental marks greatly discomfit anyone; we tend to simply ignore them, as we do when we read "foreign" words with accents we don't recognise. Where it is confusing is for letters where the IAST letters, stripped of their diacritical marks, actually are different from the way we would spell it in plain letters: thus श and ष, which would both be written "sha", are denoted by śa and ṣa respectively, and certainly lends itself to being read as "sa", by those unfamiliar with the conventions. Similarly, च is "cha" in common spellings but is ca under the convention, and ऋ, pronounced these days as "ri" in Hindi(etc.) and "ru" in Marathi/Kannada(etc.) is denoted by (no doubt "Krishna" is a much more common spelling than "kṛṣṇa"). For words like these, where the spelling with diacritics is indeed hard to read without prior knowledge, it may be worth using the simpler approximation, but where they do no harm and in fact help in pronunciation (Kapāla v/s Kapala, Guṇa v/s Guna) it is counterproductive to sacrifice the cheaply obtained precision just out of some antagonism towards IAST. The diacritic marks are familiar not just to "scholars writing their PhD theses" but also any amateur (like me) who has ever read a half-scholarly book in English about Sanskrit, or Hinduism, or whatever.
Secondly, some words are so common that everyone knows how to pronounce them, certainly every learner who might be able to read the diacritics: Shiva, Ramayana, etc. But exactly the same way, there are some words so unfamiliar in popular usage that the readers to whom the article will be most useful would certainly know to read diacritics. Thus, just as we would use IPA in articles about sounds or pronunciation even though IPA is orders of magnitude harder to learn, it is only natural to use IAST for topics about the finer points of, say, Sanskrit grammar: it does not seem wise to move Vyākaraṇa → Vyakarana (व्यकरन ≠ व्याकरण), or Bhaṭṭikāvya → Bhattikavya (भत्तिकव्य ≠ भट्टिकाव्य). Note also that the informal convention used in India for transliterating names is not necessarily helpful to an otherwise literate English reader. (BTW, the argument that IAST is "not some kind of official standard mandated by the Government of India or any other regulatory body" is a red herring: it is the de-facto standard, and even the "official" standards, Kolkata or ISO 15919, would coincide for almost all articles.)
(There is of course the argument that "we aim to be a good encyclopedia and we must adopt the most 'professional' conventions" which is too vague to be made, but a weak form is the idea of using the spelling used by the most reliable sources, which frequently turn out to be the one with diacritics.) Shreevatsa (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The thing is even some encyclopaedias like [10] do not use IAST for Bhattikavya. Lets go by case to case basis. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
First one iniated at Talk:Kaśmir Śaivism. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. People agree on a move without agreeing where to move to. IOW, this was really about not liking the diacritical version. A complete failure to exercise simple common sense, never mind apply previously well-discussed principles. As Shreevatsa correctly pointed out, using the diacritical version solves the naming problem when a well-known or "standard" English orthographic version does not exist. That's why we do have Mahabharata and why we do not have Kāśmir and why we need Daśāvatāra. The same single principle accounts for the difference. Congratulations. You have created a problem out of thin air. rudra (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Facts: See Talk:Mahabharata#Move_back. Mahābhārata was moved to Mahabharata on 22 July 2009 after a requested move and Mahabharata has an alternate spelling Mahabharat. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Move to which name[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved to Dashavatara. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC) As per a discussion above, I was starting a vote to select a non-diacritic name for the article. Please leave your sign below your choice using # --~~~~ format (with or without a rationale). If you want to leave additional comments, please leave in comments section.--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dashavatara
  1. Since Dashavatara is used most in Google book hits as well as newspapers and considering Shreevatsa's comment about a at the end.--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  2. Although Dasavatara seems to get a few more hits at books.google.com, this seems like a more accurate representation of the pronunciation. utcursch | talk 03:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support this one, also inline with Mahabharata, Ramayana etc., --TheMandarin (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  4. Following the original Hindi/Devanagari pronunciation. --Ekabhishektalk 05:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  5. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dasavatara

Dashavatar

Comments

My rationale for Dashavatara v/s Dasavatara is: IAST Śiva is Anglicized as Shiva/Shiv (श), NOT Siva. Similarly it is Ganesha/Ganesh which also has a श. By the same logic, Daśāvatāra should be Dashavatara/Dashavatar. Dashavatar(a) is also used in Indian newspapers and as a Hindu film title. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that in Google books Daśāvatāra also gets hits for Dasavatara and a "sa" is regarded as स्. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It can be also noted Dashavatara was used in Template:VishnuAvatars till http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:VishnuAvatars&oldid=229012012. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This move is imperative as, these days it is common to find young children using Hindu term in anglicized ways, we have been used to foreigners doing so. For example they make Rama rhyme with Obama, rather than calm, thus taking away the true magic of the word itself, moreover in case of mantras, a wrong pronunciation dislodges the entire energy pattern....well that's another story.. In short, with correct usage it might be easier for those willing go ahead into the etymology of these words...and to access their essence. --Ekabhishektalk 05:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: I traced the title history. This article was originally named: "Dashavatara of Vishnu" on 19 April 2008. It was moved on 22 July 2008, to Dasavatara of Vishnu, then Daśāvatāra. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Make AVATARAS category[edit]

Make AVATARAS category and put there all avataras —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.109.164 (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on moving the term Avatar to primary topic[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion [here] on moving the term Avatar from the popular film back to its original place as a primary topic. Hoverfish Talk 15:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in the Article[edit]

The opening para of the article states with due reference and correctly so... "The first four are said to have appeared in the Satya Yuga (the first of the four Yugas or ages in the time cycle described within Hinduism). The next three avatars appeared in the Treta Yuga, the eighth incarnation in the Dwapara Yuga and the ninth in the Kali Yuga. The tenth is predicted to appear at the end of the Kali Yuga in some 427,000 years time."

Now the Avatars that took place in each of the Yugas are as follows: Satya: Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narasimha Treta: Vamana, Parasurama, Rama Dwapara : Krishna Kali: Buddha, Kalki

This is in line with the above referenced quote. The mention in the article about Balarama being an Avatar of Vishnu needs to be REMOVED. That is factually incorrect as Balarama was the manifestation of Adisesha just as Lakshmana the brother of Rama was Adisesha's manifestation. Balarama was thus NOT an Avatar of Vishnu. BESIDES, if Balarama were an AVATAR then there is INTERNAL INCONSISTENCY in the article and contradicts the opening referenced quote that there was only one Avatar in the Dwapara Yuga (namely Krishna of which there is no dispute). Remember, Balarama was Krishna's elder brother. There is NO separate "North Indian" and "South Indian" belief system on the subject. The differences come out of ignorance on the subject. Buddha was not accepted as an Avatar of Vishnu by some people because of their own prejudices and that's not surprising SINCE WE ARE now in the Kali Yuga. The Vishnu is said to take an Avatar inorder to SAVE the World and to PROTECT Dharma. Buddhism has had a direct impact on large populations of the world and still has a far reaching impact on the World and to that extent, the teachings of the Avatar in terms of impact on mankind is valid. In any case, the core principles of Buddhism are all drawn from various streams of Hindu thought. TheOnlyEmperor (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Balarama and Buddha[edit]

I have undone and will continue to undo edits that delete Buddha and Balarama from the list. Here is Balarama's entry in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Hindu Gods and Goddesses:

Balarama (strength of Rama) Incarnation of the god Visnu, Hindu (Epic and Puranic). May have originated in Vedic times as an agricultural fertility deity. He is the son of Vasudeva and Devaki, though born from the womb of Rohini. Jointly with Krsna (his brother), he is identified as the eighth avatara (incarnation) of Visnu, or, with Rama, a the seventh. Legend describes how Visnu impregnated the belly of the goddess Devaki with two hairs, one black, one white. To ensure their safety against a demon king, they were transferred before birth to Rohini. Kisna grew to be dark-skinned, and Balarama light. The latter enjoys similar characteristics to Krsna but fails to attract the same popularity. He is usually depicted on the right side of Krsna, rarely standing alone. The consort of Balarama is Revati and his sons are Nisatha and Ulmuka. Epithets included Ananda (joy). In Jainism he is known as Baladeva. Attributes: arrow, club, drinking cup, fan palm, honey pot, lotus, pestle, pitcher, plough, prayer wheel, shield and sword.

—Suresh Chandra, Encyclopaedia of Hindu Gods and Goddesses (Kindle Locations 456-457), (2012-08-15).

and this quote regarding Buddha:

Even though Hindus consider Buddha as an Avatar, except for an idol of Buddha in every temple, Hindus seldom worship Buddha. To some extent, Hindus attitude to Buddha is similar to the attitude of Jews to Jesus Christ.

—Suresh Chandra, Encyclopaedia of Hindu Gods and Goddesses (Kindle Locations 508-516), (2012-08-15).
Reverting to referenced version of article. Best, Ramwithaxe talk 03:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I found it hillarious that Siddhartha is to the Hindu's as Jesus Christ is to the Jews. I promise you that Kalki's severe penance is to die as Ad-Dajjal and then to die as Jesus Christ son of God. Siddhartha is in fact the 9th avatar of Vishnu. If you don't believe me, wait till next summer when Maitreya is officially recognized and later despised and rejected and disfigured to the point where he no longer resembles a human being by the Islamic Caliphate run by Obama... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.213.70 (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Balaram, just like Lakshman, is an incarnation of Sheshnag.. Mohini incarnation is missing from the list[edit]

Balaram, just like Lakshman, is an incarnation of Sheshnag.. Mohini incarnation is missing from the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.57.160 (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Kalki argument[edit]

I think there should be somewhere mentioned, or maybe it's just my suggestion, because many christian claims that there jesus was kalki, and many muslims claim that there muhammad was kalki. None of them are true though. Capitals00 (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Balarama or Buddha[edit]

Editors keep changing the list between Balarama and Buddha. Please join the discussion and present your arguments with supportive evidences for consensus.
Anish Viswa 06:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is evidence of your version? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not advocating a version till now. Let's keep status-quot till the consensus is arrived at.
Anish Viswa 07:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You are reverting edits from X version to Y version. That means you are advocating Y version. Or are you reverting with no knowledge at all and simply reverting for fun? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
On Template:VishnuAvatars the footnote clearly states how Balarama and Buddha are both considered Vishnu Avatars based on the tradition being followed. Thats how it is and how it should be. Both names should be present in the template. Why are you moving Buddha to other avatars from Dashavatars? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Ultimately, we like have one of the two to be in Dasavatara and the other moved to other Avatars. I am just keeping one version till the consensus is reached.
Anish Viswa 07:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
We cant have consensus in this matter, just like how we cant edit and say based on how majority of editors say that Osama is President of US and not Obama. Some things are beyond consensus and this is one such example. Both names have remained till so far with the footnote clarifying the situation and that's how it should be, irrespective of how many so ever editors come and vote here for Balarama or Buddha. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Dharmadhyaksha - also it's very boring having it constantly changed. Iztwoz (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is discussed so many times. Last on Talk:Avatar#Balarama_or_Buddha_.28Continued.29. I am reverting the para to an old neutral version when Balarama is mentioned in Krishna para and Buddha is also mentioned.Redtigerxyz Talk 16:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to share my opinion. Logical reason and citation could be useful in reaching a consensus. We could cite alternate beliefs separately if proof is given. One of the prominent proof of the belief of Buddha being the avatar of Vishnu, is given by citing the literary work of an ancient Bhakti-Poet Jayadeva in his poem Gita Govindam. The pros of this is that the poet and Gitagovindam is well revered by most of the Vaishnavist sects. The cons of this proof is 1. The literature is a poem and not a standard text such as Vedas or Puranas. Jayadeva lived in a period when Buddhism was rapidly flourishing in India there could have been an influence of this in his poem 2. Some sects of Buddhism as well as Hinduism do not agree Buddha being avatar of Vishnu 3. Buddha formed a religion which is different from Hinduism by disregarding Vedas and Puranas so it is logically incomprehensible by considering Buddha (who stood against Vedas and Puranas) as an incarnation of Vishnu who is a Vedic/Puranic Deity.(In Vedas Vishnu is referred as one of the 12 Adiyas and his incarnations are mentioned in Puranas). --Ram K Bhattatirippad (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The "Logical reason" is plain WP:OR and is unsupported by references. Replies: 1. See Gautama Buddha in Hinduism as well as Avatar article discussion for references where Buddha is considered an avatar. Jayadeva is not the proof, the Puranas are. 2. Yes, agreed. But many North-Indian sects of Hinduism (even the Raja Ravi Varma painting as well as numerous North and Central Indian art) believe that Buddha as the 9th avatar. Many encyclopaedias including Britannica, [11], [12] (see more refs as in 1) include Buddha, not Balarama. The inclusion of Buddha and Rishabha, founders of Buddhism and Jainism, as avatars is generally thought to be a device to bring back the converts. 3. For ages, Jainism and Buddhism were not recognized as non-Hindu by Hindu philosophy, but as nastika schools within Hinduism, which opposed Vedas. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If we just take a quick look at this verse from the Bhagvat-Gita about the avatars of Vishnu: "paritranaya sadhunam vinasaya ca duskrtam | dharma-samsthapanarthaya sambhavami yuge yuge", it translates to "an incarnation takes place Once in every Yuga for protecting ...". This basically means 4 avatars in Krita Yuga (since one Krita Yuga is equal to a duration of 4 Yuga), 3 avatars in Threta Yuga, 2 in Dwapar Yuga and one in Kali Yuga, making a total of ten. The corollary would be that two incarnations cannot happen in a span of one Yuga. Now if we look at the fact that one Yuga is equal to a duration of 432000 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga), it simply rules out the possibility of the Eighth Avatar being the elder (human-born) biological brother of the Ninth Avatar (which means Balaram cannot be an Avatar as long as Krishna is one, and the latter being unquestionable). Now the last chapters of the Mahabharata describe the end of Dwapara Yuga and the start of Kali Yuga (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yudhisthira#Retirement_and_Ascent_to_Heaven). This means that Krishna lived towards the end of Dwapara Yuga, which implies he has to be the Ninth Avatar (4 + 3 + 2). This effectively rules out any chance of Buddha being the Ninth Avatar. Now we are left with a missing link at the Eighth position and no one to fill it (! :-) ). One possibility could be that huge sections of verses have gone missing from the scripts or we might have misinterpreted a real incarnation that happened in between Rama and Krishna as someone less divine (someone who has really been through the epics should comment on this). Another possibility would be that the Eighth Avatar is Rama and the miss happened before him, but there are many verses which describe Rama having lived in the Treta Yuga, so I won't push this one any further. Whatever it be, the timelines of the 4 Yugas (Krita, Treta, Dwapara and Kali) and the verse I've mentioned point more and more to the fact that neither Balaram nor Buddha can appear in the list of The Ten Avatars. This anomaly is something we got to look deeper into and get resolved.. Navyendu.vs (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Some pseudo historians can claim if buddha is 9th avatar, but majority of hindus obviously don't regard him as one, why we keeps adding him? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Buddha is not regarded as 9th avatar in Mahabharata nor in the Harivamsa Purana nor in the Vayu Purana, Garuda Purana.. etc. They lists Balarama as the 9th avatar instead.(Studies in Indian History and Culture - Volume 1, P. 58), And evidently, he's worshiped, unlike Buddha. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Buddha is popular in North India as the 9th avatar of Vishnu. There are numerous references/encyclopaedias that incorporate Balarama, rather than Balarama in the standard list (Just see references in this discussion as well as Talk:Avatar discussions). Balarama is regarded as Shesha, not Vishnu by them. The Mahabharata does not regard him as Vishnu. Please stop inaccurate labelling of Buddha as Balarama in the 19th century V&A image as well as in the Raja Ravi Varma image. For NPOV, we have already mentioned Balarama in Krishna paragraph. Redtigerxyz Talk 08:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
There are as many and actually more sources that confirmed Balarama as 9th avatar. Buddha is not, and it's not even disputed. You should add both names or just don't add single name, such debate has no end. But you can ask anyone, there's no significance of buddha in whole hinduism, and in fact he's regarded as atheistic. There are purana and historical scholars of hinduism that have criticized buddha.. You think they agree buddha being 9th avatar? No not at all. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Baudhayana Dharma sutra denounced Buddha as an asura(demon) and advocated that "the wise should not honour his name."
"The puranas and other works branded jains and buddhist with contemptuous names such as pasandins(heretics), nagnas(naked), atipapih(wretched sinners). The Vishnu Purana(3:18) and Brhannaradiya Purana(11:17,24-25) and 14:69-71 warn people against talking to, looking at or having any contact with the buddhists."[13] You really think that he's fully accepted? Bladesmulti (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
We have added both names. Buddha and Balarama (in Krishna) are mentioned in the list. However, Buddha seems to be much more popular in references as well as texts. I or You may have like him to be the 9th avatar, but he is widely regarded so. Unless, anyone can provide secondary references to provide that Balarama is included more times than Buddha; there should not be any change in the structure. Worship of Buddha and "acceptance" of Buddha arguments are pure WP:OR for this discussion. But for the sake of it (regard OR), atheism is a part of Hinduism. Nastika schools are also acknowledged as part of Hinduism; both Buddhism and Jainism being part of them. Some texts say that Buddha "a false teacher" misdirected the heretics and sinners so that they do not get a place in heaven or moksha (Vishnu Purana, Agni Purana, Bhagavata Purana, Matsya Purana: all regard him an avatar), which one achieves by showing Hindu ways (a negative purpose); others give him a positive purpose of teaching the world ahimsa and karuna (Jayadeva). Buddha is included in Dashavatara sculptures and art for centuries in India except in the Tamil South (however, Buddha is part of the ten avatars in Mahabalipuram inscriptions) and Bengal. Also, Jainism's first tirthankara Rishabha is also assimilated as an avatar of Vishnu (not dashavatar though). Redtigerxyz Talk 03:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Nope, Buddha has no importance in Hinduism.. If he has, why he's so much insulted in Hindu scriptures already? That's what the question is, while there's no contradiction with Balarama.
"According to the first tradition (Mahabharata, Santiparvan, and the Bhagavata Puraana), Balarama and Krishna are accepted as the eighth and ninth incarnations"(ref: Encyclopedia of India, Volume 1. p. 77, by Stanley A. Wolpert)... Only "Matsya Purana" says buddha, not any other. But once again.. When Buddha is largely avoided by Hindus already, Scriptural evidence is provided as well, how you can label him to be 9th avatar? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I have read the other discussions too, on Avatar notably, and no actual points have been generated, and discussion were indeed sloppy. Point is, that Buddha is clearly not depicted in the arts, it's heavily unclear if it's him or not, while there's no doubt if you think that 9th avatar depiction of Balaram. Look at these [14], [15], can be read here [16]. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
"Belonging to the 8th-9th century Pratihara temple architecture, the temples of Maladevi " depicts Balaram as 9th avatar. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

(undent) Let me say it again. It is not up to me or you to decide who is labelled as the 9th avatar. Apologies, it was Bhavishya, not Vishnu Purana that says it. However, Agni, Matsya and Bhagavata regard him as an avatar Alain Daniélou (both Balarama and Buddha are said to be avatars). Secondly, I have not identified the Buddha in the image, the source does it.


Redtigerxyz Talk 07:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Added more in list.Redtigerxyz Talk 16:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

But there can be 10 sources for Balaram as well. So once again, you have to add both Names, adding only 1 name is not the solution, Balaram is not contradictory anyway. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
These WP:RS references say Buddha is part of the standard list; there are other variations where Balarama is included. We already have an alternate lists section where Balarama is mentioned apart from in Krishna. Please present RS references which say Balarama is part of the standard list. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Balarama is not added to the main avatar's list, which is main list. And there's simply no reason for not adding Balaram.
Reliable. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Buddha is also mentioned. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Unreliable. Self-published. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Unreliable. Published by Fultus Corporation (self-published). --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The authors are not experts on the matter.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


There are many if you mine them. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you please provide reliable references from Hinduism or religion books or general purpose encyclopaedias that specifically say that Balarama is part of the standard lists more. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

p. 28 states that Buddha is part of standard list; and devotes a chapter to him. p. 29 states that there is a difference of opinion about it and Balarama is Buddha's alternative. Balarama is covered as a part of Krishna chapter. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Buddha is included on page 16. Where is Balarama included?--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
There is some comment on Balarama in passing. Complete sentence not available. Can you please quote it.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

And even this one, Hindu Gods And Goddesses that you provided before, it was page 27, but this is 33, mentions Balaram as well and describes how Balarama is avatar. While those like [17], who consider Balrama as 8th avatar doesn't recognize buddha as 9th. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=4ok0t6cs3BAC&pg=PA33 is Not Hindu Gods And Goddesses link. Can you please correct the link. http://books.google.com/books?id=5DPDE2zBgHoC&pg=PA2587#v=onepage&q&f=false is unreliable (Gyan: see Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Ghi#Gyan_Publishing_House). Redtigerxyz Talk 17:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Balrama is visible at Page.16, read the last line of the first paragraph, above buddha's image. [18] is maybe other book, but still a source. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Confused.png Everybody agrees on Balarama being the elder brother of Krishna ... And everybody agrees that Krishna is one of the avtaars of Vishnu ... Beyond a reasonable doubt ... Then I dont understand the logic, How can Vishnu take 2 avtaars at a time and that too as half-brothers ? & Why such a need arose for him? The discussion would have made sense if it was between Balarama or Krishna & not Balarama & Buddha who are ages apart. Please, if possible, remove in haste, Balarama projected as an avtaar of Vishnu from all the relevant articles. - Ninney (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I support the current version of including Buddha in main list and Balarama in the alternative lists. That is because Buddha has been more popularly been part of Dashavatara than Balarama is. The yuga-theory, two-simultaneous avataras and Buddha's non-notability in Hinduism don't really matter. Yuga theory above comes from a different book and evidently there has been many versions of many stories in Hindu mythologies. Its wrong for us to use something from one book to check something from others. (Many a times, Mahabharata itself has contrasting things within itself. Its huge and that's one possible reason for such mismatches.) Two-avataras-cant-happen-simultaneously is a wrong theory too. After all they are supernaturals. Also, Parshurama has been present in times of Rama and Krishna. So if Balarama is considered avatar in South India, that's not completely illogically. Buddha's status and criticism in other Hindu texts and commentaries also doesn't matter. The fact that he has been counted as avatar at his birth matters. What he did later on in his life might have resulted in his criticism in future. Most important thing to understand is that this all is mythology. Logical reasoning, scientific verification, etc. are bad reasons for supporting anything. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Ninney and Dharmadhyaksha, I agree with Ninney that different argument can be made regarding the list, I looked into it some days ago, and another legible list that I would find was this one:-
  1. Matsya
  2. Koorma
  3. Varaha
  4. Narasimha
  5. Vamana
  6. Parasurama
  7. Rama
  8. Balarama
  9. Krishna
  10. Kalki [19], [20], [21], more [22], [23]

Buddha is not regarded as avatar, because he born in Kaliyuga. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thats a funny reason to disregard Buddha but count in Kalki who is yet to incarnate and would happen in Kalyug too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Kaliyuga will end, If Kalki came, no Kaliyuga ended when Buddha came, and it's over 2400 years already, its still on going. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I hope this dispute is over soon. One must have a look at Development of Hinduism, Vivekananda regarded him anything, but not more than a human either.[24]. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I promise you that Kalki has incarnated and that he is the reincarnation of Siddhartha and in a few years you will hear about Maitreya and he will teach the world what he has learned from his life experience. Also he will intertwine Hinduism, Buddism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam will be the antithesis that will serve him his severe penance. You heard that correct, Islam is in fact that antithesis that will serve him the first half of his severe penance... Yes that is right folks Kalki is going to die as Ad-Dajjal... Remember that the role of Islam's Mahdi is identical to Christianities antichrist, Isa son of Mary fulfills the role of Christianities false prophet, and Ad-Dajjal dies after 1 year 1 month 1 week and 37 days, which is exactly 62 weeks and fulfills the prophecy from Daniel 9:26... The next part of his severe penance is to remove the burden of sin. I will leave this part up to your imagination and I don't want to give away any spoilers how the dashavatara is supported in the Christian scriptures since I want to save this lesson as a surprise for later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.213.70 (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I was reading the article today and noticed that Buddha and Balarama have been changed again in the Avatars section, but the alternative lists still reads as if Buddha was in the list which is quite confusing and ruins the flow of the article. As I'm sure you can tell by the lack of a username I'm not a regular editor and I noticed this subject seems to cause regular edit wars, so I just wanted to note this to the more experienced editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.167.118 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Buddha is not a Avtar[edit]

please reamove Lord Boddha as a Avtar in Dashavtar.it is Created by Hindu. Buddhist does not allow that Buddha is a Avtar of vishnu. PRASAD 13:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

One may like it or not, Buddha is accepted a Vishnu avatar, especially the 9th avatar. See references above. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It has been noted above, that multiple sources and multiple religious scriptures, traditions consider Krishna to be 9th avatar. Not Buddha.
It is non-neutral and one sided view if you keep buddha while ignore other on the main list. I have reverted the last version because it was badly written biography of buddha, and the editor overly praised the subject which is just out of contemporary history. It is better if you keep both names, or the list should include just 8 names. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know much about the subject, but the bUddha being regarded as the 9th avatar is also known to me. And, being a Buddhist (huh? says who?), I really like it that the Buddha has been absorbed into Hinduism! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Fascinating indeed. I agree with the current version too. Thanks for adding those sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The current article is confusing. "Krishna or Balarama" and "Buddha or Krishna" doesn't suggest that when Balarama or Buddha is included. Also, the reference [25] cited explicitly starts with discussion of Buddha and says Srivaishnavas omit him and lists the Srivaishnava list; please note not the general consensus. We had references above that explicitly say that Buddha is included more often. for example, "In the more popular list of ten avatars of Vishnu, the ninth avatar is shown as Buddha, not Balarama." Also, international encyclopedias and dictionaries are including Buddha, where general list (without mentioning any sectarian affliction). There are several variations in the list where regional deities like Vithoba, Jagannatha are included instead of Buddha. Also, Krishna-centric list; where both Buddha and Balarama are included and Krishna dropped. Balarama being part of Srivaishnava list is prominent in South India. Thus, as a compromise, it was decided that Balarama be included in with Krishna and "generally included as one of Dashavatara in Sri Vishnava lists, instead of Buddha" be explicitly stated. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fine with me, I guess. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Redtigerxyz By far, you are the only one who is rebelling against the WP:NPOV and consensus that was established months ago and just now to add either both of the names or add the names that are more recognized. Buddha is by far less recognized, and considered by many reliable source to be asserted 1300 years after his death. I have reverted all the way back to Joshua's version, don't revert until you reach to consensus. If you find it hard, just use commonsense, that Balarama is elder to Krishna, so he is counted before Krishna in terms of Avatar. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • And nothing is confusing. Scriptures do assert Krishna or Balarama to be 8th avatar. Krishna or Buddha to be 9th as well.[26] You cannot push one name while ignore other. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Common sense does not apply to mythology. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Dharmadhyaksha Yes There are also some sources that stated Balarama to be 9th avatar,[27], [28] and more. I think that numbering of list can be broken into summaries, it may help. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Blades, as far as I can see, the concensus at this moment is to give the Buddha as 9th avatar (redtiger, Dharmadhyaksha; no objection (at this moment) from me. You're the only one who's objecting. So, at this moment you'll simply have to accept it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The references are unreliable. Two of them are self-published; Third drops Kalki from the list; which I have never read about in RS (an OR, factual error or fringe).Redtigerxyz Talk 13:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You mean the refrences that I'd just re-inserted? Then just remove them again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I was talking the references gven by Bladesmulti above. I checked those references; they do not mention Vishishtadvaita. Britannica says that Balarama is included when Krishna is elevated to higher rank; while dictionary just names Balarama as an avatar. Redtigerxyz Talk 14:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Not self published, Genesis is not a self-publishing company. Who's talking about Vishishtadvaita? We are talking about other names. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Buddha is not an avatar. Some of our friends are not ready to accept that fact. Buddha is born in kaliyug. No avatar except kalki will born in kaliyug. Some of the people believe that buddha may be an avatar of vishnu. Some of the hindus say he is a saint. It differ according to the beliefs of various vaishnava sects. Most approved version is that Balarama is the 8th avatar of vishnu. I am planning to find sources but not quite sure it will reach 'consensus' here. Rameshnta909 (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
There are Hindu scriptures that doesn't include Buddha at all. Sources [29], [30], [31] and more. That's why I preferred this version to be most neutral. But here redtigeryx seems to be ignoring one source for other, but version should be NPOV. It is necessary to include both Krishna/Balarama for 8th and Krishna/Buddha for 9th. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Sources looks credible to me. See also [32] Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
We have gone over these already. Carman is already included as a reference. It says "Many such lists, ... include the Buddha as an incarnation." and then notes the Srivashnava list which omits Buddha. Carman does not state this is the popular list. Many encyclopedias include Buddha and drop Balarama. Also, we have a reference that explicitly states that Buddha is included in the popular list. The current version states that: "Balarama is the elder brother of Krishna (an avatar of the god Vishnu) and is regarded generally as an avatar of Shesha. He is included as the eighth avatar of Vishnu in the Sri Vaishnava lists, where Buddha is omitted. Krishna appears as the ninth avatar in this list." in the Krishna para (Note Balarama is bolded). Please provide RS/encyclopedias which prove that Balarama is included in popular lists and Buddha dropped. I oppose [33] which is very confusing to understand. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I count over 16 reverts by many users, because no one is agreeing with the current version other than you. I am not sure if you have analyzed that single source well because you don't seem to be talking about content or source but its background and it is useless. You have ditched other 4 reliable sources already. You can also see [34], Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide by Roshen Dalal, remember that we have used this book many times and it is clearly reliable source. It adds that according to Mahabharat, the list is like:-
Hamsa, Kurma, Matsya, Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, Rama (bhargava), Rama (Dashrathi), Satvata (Krishna or Balarama), Kalki.
These many sources are enough. It is not confusing to understand at all, because there are so many scriptures that dropped Buddha from the list. We go by the reliable sources and not by your mindset. There are many sources that say Buddha was added to the list just because he was getting popular, not that he had to do anything with the religion. We can also mention that to article and we can the remove the list from other 2 places because it seems to be more of POV pushing than the listing. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, you cite Dalal for the Mahabharata, but ignore a line above that in the same source: "The standard and most accepted list found in Puranas and other texts is: ... Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Kalki." This is what I am saying Buddha is in popular list. There are several variations in the list with other Vaishnava deities, rather than the standard 10 being included. Balarama is noted in the article, the POV pushing to include him in the popular list is uncalled for. Redtigerxyz Talk 13:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
You think that the your preferred title 'popular list' will remain? We can just change it back to 'avatars', it made sense. We cannot give highest priority to 'standard', whatever is written on Mahabharat must be added too. Generally, what is more accepted is that Balarama was considered as avatar instead of Buddha. So if you are not adding Balarama to the list then you are clearly POV pushing. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the list from those 3 images, since they were nothing more than the malformed guesses. None of the picture provided links were mentioning any names of avatars. Balaji's website[35] also mentions a list of 10 avatars, in Balaji temple of Goa, there are idols of Balarama, but not Buddha, that image was copied from the page Reincarnation so I have copied the original description too.
Whoever wrote Dashavatara#Evolutionary interpretation has largely misrepresented the sources, I just checked the 4 sources,[36],[37], and found Balarama to be in the list. So I have removed Buddha from there. I found one interesting thing from about.com that "The last Avatar is yet to appear, and in many versions of the mythology, the ninth incarnation is mentioned as Lord Buddha. But this is a much later addition done at a time when the concept of Dashavatara was already fully developed." Which is actually correct.[38] Now don't add or remove until you reach to proper consensus. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
[39] is not reliable. Fultus Corporation is a self-publishing house. Same logic with [40], why is it reliable? This is not a peer-reviewed author like the prominent encyclopedias. Buddha may be added later, but the current popular list includes him. Also there were 4 references to the section, without checking the other 2; how can you simply add Balarama. Redtigerxyz Talk 13:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Why you don't talk about [41]?? And 4 others. I never talked about the reliability of those sources including about.com, only told that you have misrepresented sources and maybe anything that includes balarama as avatar is unreliable to you, but again I checked all 4 sources and none of them included Buddha. So I have re-added Balarama, now you can stop edit warring and stop adding malformed guesses like you did again on the image. If you have any source about 1879's painting with the names, just present them here. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Reply to "Why you don't talk about [42]??": I have already done so, but you have chosen to ignore the reply: "Carman is already included as a reference. It says "Many such lists, ... include the Buddha as an incarnation." and then notes the Srivashnava list which omits Buddha. Carman does not state this is the popular list. Many encyclopedias include Buddha and drop Balarama. ... Redtigerxyz Talk 05:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)". Also, I have doubt your claim "I checked all 4 sources and none of them included Buddha": the online TOI certainly has Buddha, not Balarama. You simply replaced Buddha with Balarama [43] without even changing the references that cited the Buddha claim. I have removed another self-published reference, that was in fact in support of Buddha. The V&A has a caption in the older website and the BBC site that uses the image also includes Buddha as avatar. For Raja Ravi Varma, I am searching for a caption. Redtigerxyz Talk 11:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The image of the temple door of the Balaji Temple, Goa. That is Vithoba; neither Balarama nor Buddha.
  • Some correction is needed. The figure, with hands resting on the waistline is actually Vithoba and neither Balarama or Buddha. In Maharashtra, which is close to Goa, at times, the 9th avatara is credited to be Vithoba. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Quote from Bhagavata Purana[edit]

I've removed the following quote:

"The first lines of the Bhagavata Purana open:
Om namo bhagavate vasudevaya ete
Camsah kalah pumsah krishna stu bhagavan svayam
I bow to God, Krishna, who appeared as the son of Vasudeva|Bhagavata Purana, Srimad Bhagavadam|Bhagavata Purana, 1.3.28"

The relevance to Krishna as supreme godhead is unclear, and given the reference that follows it, does it more look like a (POV) interpolation. Are there other opinions? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Quote is UNDUE here. Should be removed.--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Table?[edit]

On 9th and 8th, my opinion is that both names should be mentioned. Or you can simply add a table(not the descriptions they are WP:UNDUE). Bladesmulti (talk)

Short descriptions are certainly needed, like the ones currently in the article; though they might be rewritten. It is impossible for non-Hindu (even some Hindus) to know about say a Varaha. A brief about him tells about his tale and adds context. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard[edit]

Article is being discussed on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Dashavatara Bladesmulti (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Dashavatara painting[edit]

The description of the painting of dashavatara wrongly states that one of the pics is buddha. It is actually Vithoba. The popular position of vithoba is the padmasana as shown in the figure. Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

See FA Vithoba. Vithoba is always arms-akimbo. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Buddha is popular as an avatar even in paintings. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

V&A image caption[edit]

Avatars.jpg

The caption was copy pasted from 2007 V&A site, when uploaded. The site is redesigned now and does not have the old description. However it is preserved in Britannica, which uses it. Do not change the caption of the lead image. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We can put more neutral image to lead, but that will be discussed later. I think the other picture by Raja Ravi Varma should be on lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)