Talk:Venkateswara

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hinduism / Mythology / 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 Hindu mythology (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Vaishnavism (marked as High-importance).
 

Discussion at Talk:Tirumala Venkateswara Temple[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at [[Talk:Tirumala Venkateswara Temple]]. Pavan 04:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Please participate in the RFC discussion of whether Thondaiman has built the Tirumala Temple. Pavan 04:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality of the write-up[edit]

This article does not measure up to the quality of Wikipedia articles. The style and grammar should be revised. Please change the categorization of this article to include Jainism as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.156.130 (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Merger[edit]

The content below is copied from Talk:Lord Venkateswara. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I doubt the accuracy of the number of visitors and most-visited status of this temple. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:34, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

according to the TTD, Balaji receives over 50K per day. On festival days of course the number would be much higher.

I merged this w Venkateshwara. Please discuss @ Talk:Venkateshwara, and find a compromise so that the dispute can be removed. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Dispute[edit]

I am removing the accuracy dispute header. Please help make the needed changes if you insit on replacing it. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I can help cleanup this article --Vyzasatya 23:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Content of the article[edit]

The title Venkateshwara implies that this article will deal with Venkateshwara (Hindu GOD). But most of the content seems to be about the famous Tirupati temple dedicated to Venkateshwara. Depending on what we want to make this article we might needs to move some content from here to the temple article --Vyzasatya 19:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

All these related articles need heavy reshuffling of content and reorgnization

--Vyzasatya 09:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The History section seems like a summary of the Legend section ("It is said that Lord Kubera ..." etc.). No dates and no historical grounding. What's appropriate here are historical facts whose date and legitimacy are reasonably well established. First references to Ventakateswara or Srinivasa. Mentions in literature that can be dated. With citations. Right now this section is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.19.23 (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Biblical references[edit]

I have removed the references to Baal as a name for Venkateshwara and other related conjecture. There is no basis for any of this and it serves to obfuscate rather than illuminate. If anyone wishes to reinsert please at least make clear that such discussion is merely speculation.

Neutrality issues[edit]

The article at severe times says Venkateswara is "supreme god". This against the WP:NEUTRAL policy.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Redtigerxyz, you wrote some time back the following on the discussion page of Venkateswara:

"The article at severe times says Venkateswara is "supreme god". This against the WP:NEUTRAL policy" According to the original principles of the Sri Sampradayam, to various supported puranic text and Sadhus; Venkateswara is the form of Vishnu for this age of kali as mention in many Sastras. Since He is Vishnu or Narayana...He is the "Supreme God", who is also mention in the original Vedas, main Upanishads, sattvic Puranas, the laws of Manu,by the original Vaishnava saints-the Alwars,by Ramanujacharya as the First and "Supreme God". That is Sastra, Sadhu and Dharma (Scriptures, holy men and tradition). That is what this article-writer is trying to say. In the philosophical context of the Religion; it is not against the WP:NEUTRALpolicy. I also see that you have helped with ISKON articles. And, I know that alot of ISKON people do not know about Venkatesha, because of the belief of Sri Krishna and Caitanya Maha-Prabhu. The awareness, knowledge and scripturally back premise that Venkateswara is God to be Worship by all in the kali yuga is unrefuted by the alwars, Yamunacharya, Ramanujacharya, Vedanta desika, and but Scripture, which is the most important. If you like, I can send you some websites and the names and email address of Sri Sampradayam Scholars that can prove what I said to be truth and absolute FACT.Zeuspitar Govinda Ramanuja dasa(talk) 19:41, 03 March 2008 (UTC)

The article sounds like devotee literature repeating Venkateswara is "supreme god". In Hinduism, other gods like Shiva, Shakti, Ganesha, Surya are considered supreme gods in their resp. cults. (Shaivism, Shaktism, Ganapatya, Saura). In Vaishnavas, Vishnu is supreme, and not just the form of Venkateswara. In Shiva, it is written as " Within Shaivism he is viewed as the supreme deity, where as in other branches of Hinduism such as the Smarta tradition he is worshipped as one of five manifestations of the divine.", not just he is supreme God thus being NEUTRAL. About ISKCON, Somebody said "If we can,...can we work together with ONLY Rudra and redtigerxyz to do this...go through all the articles and make them non-bias....Govinda Ramanuja dasaUSA (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)" on Talk:Bhagavad Gita. I have no connection to ISKCON and i do not know about their philosphy.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Redtigerxyz, Hey... I hope that I didnt come off too hash or too fanatical,if I did, I am very, very sorry. All night I was thinking about this, and...I need to stop it. I hope every thing is o.k. with you .Zeuspitar Govinda Ramanuja dasa(talk) 10:00, 04 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the "Supreme God" reference should probably be changed to avoid confusion, but perhaps (in the interest of WP:NPOV) a note should be added somewhere for the sects of Vaishnavism that do believe Venkateshwara is the Supreme God, preferably with a sourced link. While He is a form of Vishnu, nearly all Vaishnava sects believe that Vishnu is the source of all of His forms, and so to avoid confusion the note should be made. --Shruti14 t c s 23:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Reassess as Start[edit]

Needs a CLEANUP. Issues:

  • WP:UNDUE glorification of the Diety. Not encyclopedic, more like devotee literature
  • No References. WP:OR like "Adi Sankaracharya came to Tirumala and placed Sri chakra at the lotus feet of Lord Venkateshwara and sung the famous song "Bhaja Govindam". So Lord Venkateshwara is the supreme God of this Kali yuga".
  • Infobox needed
  • Lead not as WP:LEAD
  • WP:MOS violations like use of "God" (not 'god'); bolding of BALAJI, GOD etc.

Thus not worthy of the "commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Legend of Tirumala can be provided in legends. The legend be written in summary style. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
By any chance, are you coming from an ISKON/Gaudiya stance in regard to this issue? Venkatesha is one of the most revered forms of God in India. Scripturally, it says that Venkateswara is the present incarnation of Vishnu or Narayana. Scripturally, Sadhu-wise and tradition, before the schisms from the Sri Sampradayam of 12th through 16th centuries,all say that Narayana is God or Brahman. If you would like, I can give you websites and email addresses of Actual vedically trainned, school trainned Sri Sampradayam pandits and others who can prove this point. --zeuspitar Govinda Ramanuja dasa(talk) 11:53, 04 March 2008 (UTC)

The Covered Eyes[edit]

In the lonely planet guide it says that Lord Venkateshwar's eyes are covered because they would scorch the universe otherwise. Any substantiation for this claim in scripture or folklore? It would make a nice addition to the article and draw some of the focus off of the temple. AaronCarson (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of that one before - in scripture or folklore. AFAIK (and through research) there is no such scriptural reference, and although there might be one in folklore (haven't heard of it and can't find one yet) I will say that it's not the first time I've seen incorrect claims or 'facts' made in Lonely Planet travel guides. --Shruti14 t c s 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Changes Made by Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA[edit]

While I like some of the changes made to the article, I do not think that I agree with all of them. (See here for a comparison of the article from before Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA made changes to what is there currently.) Parts of it still don't comply with WP:MOS, and more importantly, large portions of the article have been removed. I think we should keep some of the changes, but restore parts of the original article. --Shruti14 t c s 15:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Study the comparison, almost no info is removed, its just re-organized. Kudos Zeuspitar.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, guys, I am very thankful that we can help each other, comprimise with one another to improve articles. It actually quite nice. Please Shruti and everyone, let know what is wrong and I'll change them. Shruti, please help me to change what you think I did wrong. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The changes are pretty good for the most part - not much info was removed. Actually now that I look back at it I think they are fine - what needs to be focused on now is expansion and citing sources. --Shruti14 t c s 00:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Etymology[edit]

Instead of the parenthesized breakup of the word at the top, I have rewritten it in an "Etymology" section in sentence form. --Shruti14 t c s 02:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of the word Venkata being `destroyer of sins' is incorrect. Student's Sanskrit English Dictionary by Vaman Shivram Apte (Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) provides the meaning of Venkata (वेंकट:) to be the name of a mountain. There is no dictionary that translates ven (वें) to mean sin and kata (कट) to mean destroyer. If there is such a translation, please provide, else the existing translation will be deleted soon. Rishiyur1 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

UNDUE[edit]

REmoved: "Beliefs: To the majority of Vaishnavas; Vishnu or Narayana is considered and worshipped as the one supreme God or Brahman. Even though Vishnu incarnates in various forms or avataras at different times and purposes, He is still considered one and indivisible. His better known past avataras or incarnations have been Narasimha, Parashurama, Rama, and Krishna. According to Sastra or the Vedic scriptures; for this specific age called the Kali yuga, He has come in the form of Venkateshwara. To Vaishnavas, since He is Vishnu-incarnated, Venkateshwara is considered the supreme one God. " WP:UNDUE to beliefs about Vishnu, nothing really about Venkateswara form. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Now thinking about it, I agree with you. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The improvements on the page[edit]

Dear everyone, Hey, I really think that the changes that everyone has made to the Venkatesh. page are wonderful. It looks alot better than before. It's more stream lined, cleaner, and more user-friendly. I am very glad to have worked with you all in making this much better page than it was before. And, I am very thankful to have done this seva/kainkarya/devotional service to Vishnu and the public.Love and Namaskar. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Venkateswara is jain idol[edit]

WORLD'S RICHEST TEMPLE - This is originally a Jain temple converted by Ramanujam/Sankaracharya around 8th century A.D onwards along with 1000s other dravid temples.

ORIGIN OF TEMPLE: THIRTHANKAR TEMPLE BUILT BY: DRAVIDIAN CIVILIZATION LORD VENKATESHWARA- NO HISTORICITY, NAME CONVERTED BY ARYAN BRAHMINS.

ORIGINAL IDOL: THIRTHANKAR- NEMINATH - HIDDEN BY BIG NAMAM , JEWELLARY, FACE COVERED.

Complete idol is covered to hide its original identity. Balaji has been photographed on many occassions without Jewellary and it is found to be Standing thirthankara, which many brahmins believe and admit. Archaelogical scientists, honest historians have proved this to be a Jain temple. Brahmins also believe even Ramayana is myth and no real things existed whatever depicted in it.


Millions of people visit Balaji temple but no one know reality about this temple. It is truly dravid temple, which is confirmed by Archaelogical department as Jain temple. Many brahmins silently believe and agree that it is originally Jain temple converted by Ramanujam and Sankaracharya as 1000s of other dravid Jain temples converted, rechristened by Avatar philiosophy. No Historian can ever claim that there was any god by name Lord venkateshwara.

Many historians world wide believe - any given old temple in southern part of India is originally a Jain temple. However it may have changed its name. As such Hinduism ( word coined by britishers) was not a single religion till recently . It use to be known with hundreds other names in different part of asia. Eg. Saivism, vaishnavism, sanatan, Vaidic and so many different names according to geographical locations. No wonder there are millions of god worshipped. thanks to britishers for reuniting and giving a common name.

Archaeological Senior officers (who chose not to comment much due to political and brahmin (aryan)dominance ) firmly believe that originally complete dravid population was Jain who were not fighters like aryans, and believers of Ahimsa, whose heritage was stolen by cunning aryans who came to India around 3500 years ago. They slowly entered into dravid land grabbed their property, culture, heritage and even literature.

Brahmins had only means to survive with temples, caste system was created by them according to their whims, fooled people with Avatars, mutilated dravid temples,converted them into whatever name they fancied eg. venkateshwara, kapalishwara, varadaperumal, etc which neither has historical identity nor these gods are even talked about in any literature. Moreover these fabricated avatars are not known in other sects of Brahmin religion and Hinduism. Let us say Lord Kapalishwara, or Meenakshi, kamakshi cannot even be identified by people from UP, Delhi, Rajasthan, Gujrat. These avatars are only known in few places in South that too among those brahmins who converted Dravid temples to Aryan temples by deceit.

Recent historians who are not influenced politically or motivated by brahimnisation firmly convey that even today no one is interested in publishing real history of dravids which was superimposed by Aryans. their heritage is neglected, their literatures are faked by Brahimins.

For example Thirukural was product of dravid civilization ( written by Jain Saints) but later it was labelled as Hindu literature at the time Hinduism was not known with its present name around 1st century B.C.when sacrifice of animals and vaidic religion was in vogue.

To conclude Tirupati balaji temple is wonderful temple belonging to all devotees, it can be run the way it is going. But atleast its true history and identity has to be made known. How long millions of people will be fooled with fake identity given to this temple by brahims? How long its abhisekham and other rituals will be performed in private with closed doors.? I think most of gods elsewhere in hinduism whose abhisekham is performed in public view, same way Tirupati's rituals need to be done in open with public view. As we all believe god are not property of brahmins alone, but they belong to devotees.

Why Tirupati Lord venkateshwara's face has to be hidden. When no face of Lord Rama, Lord Krishna, Lord siva, Lord brahma, Lord Ganesha are hidden. This looks quite weird hiding face of god to mislead its real identity.

We would all love to have our god let it be brahmin or jain , it has to be in open for everyone. Let us ask those brahmins to perform all pooja, abhisekham openly, not to hide with curtains or by closing doors. There is absolutely no need to keep God in private if this is real .

One real good picture has to be published as it was created many centuries ago as Lord Neminath without jewellary , namams and flowers, let their devotees see their own lovely god without barrier. afterall devotee when comes with 100 % pure devotion they must be allowed to see their real god 100%, not loaded with jewellary, artificial foreign elements which are used for covering true identity. This is one of reason only 2 % of complete structure is visible to devotees, which doesn't happen with Lord Krishna, Lord Rama, Lord Hanuman, Lord Ganesha in other parts of India. God's identy is hidden only in such temples when temple would have been converted from Jain temple and their naming is done on fabricated, non-historical avatars.

Can we request temple authorities to reveal its true identity and to see full face and posture of god . Can we have real photograph without artificial projected hands, face and other parts.

I think brahmins would never allow to do that. Our brahmin dominated society is far away from truth, they have managed to reverse complete history of this country.

Let us request our government to atleast make the truth available to every devotee, not living under the myths and stories. Indian courts have already declared few decades ago, this being truly jain temple. Unfortunately today people think jains are only who are from part of Rajasthan, Gujraj or some pockets of North India who are basically trading community. But truth is that real Jains are only who were dravidians. Present Jains in Rajasthan, gujrat are only few who converted from Aryan brahmin religion. Original Jains from ages are dravids (original inhabitants of bharat)who are living in Tamilnadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Kerala , bihar into farming, labour jobs and are very poor, whose heritage was looted, converted which is as old as 4th century b.c. - can be found abandoned or converted all over. jainism existed much before lord Mahavira. North American based historians have traced Jain history upto 8000 years old with enough evidences and proof. An American historian has said Lord rishabnath has been renamed as Lord Siva.

From ages dravid history has been mutilated, wrongly potrayed by so called responsbile vested interests of society, politics and even government. It is Aryans whose history, mythology and wrong facts are superimposed over dravid history, who were immigrants to India. Dr Santhalingam, senior director of Archaelogical survey and his assistant, and ASI has unpublished researched facts which clearly state that , Every old temple in south was once jain temple, presently known with different identity created by brahmins, few such examples out of 1000s of dravid jain temples converted to Brahmin temples are:

1) Madurai meenakshi temple 2) kanchipuram kamakshi temple (Kanchipuram has more than 100 temples) 3) varadaperumal temple ( kanchipuram) 4) thiruvanmalai Arunachalam temple 5)Mylapore kapaliswara temple 6) nagaraja temple nagercoil 7) Thirumala balaji temple, ( total resemblance to thirumalai jain temple in Arni district)

Dr. Santhalingam expressed that due to political circumstances these facts cannot be disclosed or published, but facts remain same. He also said thiruvalluvar was a Jain saint who wrote thirukural, he has done enough research but unable to publish same.Even Tamil was evolved from dravid Jain civilization born out of brahmi language. Enough evidences are avaialable from epigraphy. As per him aryan brahims invaded jain temples and converted them as their source of livelihood.

Let us all pray to Lord venkateshwara ( Lord Neminath) to protect our devotees and believers without the help of agents ( brahmins) , and let everyone know its true identity and real name, no matter Aryan Jains, dravid jains, or saivist or vaishnavaites control this temple. It is common for all the devotees. Worshiping any god without knowing real identity can only add to our ignorance. There shouldn't be any force which would work towards faking our very own god's name.


Above information is well supported and contributed by:

Archaeological survey of India , TN Branch American Historians German universities Few Historians from India. Foreign Universities. Professors from Madras University. Christians community of Nagercoil who were originally Jains Nadar community who were originally Jains whose origin is traced upto 4000 years-specified in book written by Dr. M Emmanuel- dravid lineage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.226.147 (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Instead of introducing this content in the talk pages and articles Talk:Tirumala Venkateswara Temple and this article, you should provide verifiable sources to prove your theory.-- WorLD8115 (TalK) 09:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The para above reads as WP:POV (point of view) pushing and seems to be a WP:FRINGE theory. Its tall claim to be supported by the ASI, German, American and Indian historians needs to be proved by supplying WP:reliable sources. I had also heard about a theory that Balaji was in fact Buddha. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Needs many more academic/scholarly sources[edit]

Please use more academic sources. Compare this article to the article here which is wholly better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vithoba . Thigle (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Sri Srinivas.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Sri Srinivas.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Venketashwara Etymology[edit]

WHy is there a non reliable source mentioned. Also the article itselelf states " I believe ......" , which means the referred article is a original research. unsourced articles in this page. This page needs improvement and semi protection !Eshwar.om (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)