From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Adithya)
Jump to: navigation, search

Request proof-reading.[edit]

I have added the Sanskrit text for the surya-namaskar shlokas. I have done it based on the existing English transliterated version given and also made some changes as per what I feel should be the correct spellings. I request that someone with knowledge take a look at it and improve it if required. Thank you. Rohitbd 14:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if the sholkas for Surya namaskara were put on that page. I don't think once this article expands and improves that there will be enough space here. GizzaChat © 06:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yantra image[edit]

I believe that the Yantra displayed on this page in a western invention and has little or nothing to do with the various yantras classically associated with Surya, both as a Devata (deity) and a Graha (planet).

Significance of the seven horses[edit]

I was thinking if the 7 horses of the demi-god Surya might be related to the seven colors of light. I know this might sound 'Hinduic' or 'New Age', but a couple of things come to mind - 1) Surya is the only celestial being depicted as riding a chariot with 7 horses but the numbers are usually even like 4 or 6. Also 3 and 9 and their even multiples are very important in Hindu traditions, but a number like 7, though it has been considered sacred by many cultures of known history has been reserved exclusively for Surya. 2) I came across an article at, about Konark which has this interesting thing to say :-

The seven horses at Konarak are named after these colors: Rakta (red), Rocika (orange), Pita (yellow), Nila (blue), Indra-nila (deep blue), Mocika (violet) and Shukla (white).

I am not sure, but sunlight as we all know, is composed of seven colors and despite the 'sacredness' of 7, it is reserved only for Surya.

I like your idea, but isn't the Goddess Ushas also depicted, riding in a chariot with seven horses? Then again, the horses are supposed to be all red, so your point still might stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronCarson (talkcontribs) 16:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

7 archangels as well Bozo33 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Surya's Feet[edit]

I red somewhere that it was forbidden to depict Surya's feet in iconography, but all the images I see of Lord Surya, show his feet. Can somebody please write something about this strange contradiction?AaronCarson (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Surya's feet-one reason for iconography habit[edit]

Surya’s feet Reference: Matsya purana. During the ‘great flood’ the boat (ark) was being towed by Matsya (fish). Matsya was an incarnation of Vishnu who recounted to Manu (first man) the Matsya purana. Solar line history. Surya: father sage Kashyapa and mother Adita. Wife: Samjna. Samjna found Surya’s radiance too much to bear so created a doppelganger out of her own body called Chhaya (=shadow) and left him. Vishvakarma (architect to the Gods) shaved off Surya’s radiance so people could bear to look at him but left his feet unmodified. The energy was used to construct the celestial weapons. No one can bear to look at Surya’s feet. It is forbidden to visualise Surya’s feet when praying to him on pain of being labelled a sinner and suffering from leprosy.--Graham401142 (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I had read something similar to what you posted about Surya's feet here. I do appreciate your response. I have a copy of the Matsya Purana, and I've been pouring over it, but I must admit that I can't find an answer to my original question, which is that: why, if it's forbidden to depict Surya's feet, do we still see them in statuary, and portraiture? AaronCarson (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Kashi Vishwanath Temple[edit]

Is there a connection between Vishwanath and ("His other names include) Vivasvat (Sanskrit: वैवस्वत) (also Visvakarma or Vivasvan)"?

Austerlitz -- (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read that Vivasvat is the father of Yama and Yami.

Austerlitz -- (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with geocities? It happens quite often that their links are deleted automatically.

Austerlitz -- (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Eye of Mitra-Varuna/Ahura Mazda[edit]

Please see my comments on the talk page for Ahura Mazda. The Vedas refer to Surya several times as "the eye of Mitra, Varuna, and Agni." The Zend Avesta refers to the Sun several times as "the eye of Ahura Mazda." Hokie Tech (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Chief executive of gods"[edit]

Really? What's the basis for this claim? It sounds contemporary and made up and I haven't found any similar correspondence in the mythology aside from his "once" being comparably important to the Trimurti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Surya/Sun worship in China[edit]

@Prodigyhk: We must re-add the "According to Chung Tan,..." because "ancient worship of Surya in China" is not a broadly held scholarly view. The source clearly admits that the "Surya in China" is Chung Tan's speculation / theory. Yes, the cite at the end of the para you added identifies the author to Chung Tan, but an accurate summary must clarify if a certain statement is one individual's claim or a broadly held scholarly consensus. Your wording makes it appear to be the latter, which is WP:Undue and WP:POV. We must be careful in both "what we say" and "how we say it". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

ps: Is "Surya worship in ancient China" theory borderline fringe? FWIW, I have no preference whether this Chung Tan's theory is or is not included in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This information is from 1600 BCE. This is not fringe theory. Chung is qualified. Like all historians, Chung is stating this, based on evidences he has seen, and no other qualified person is disputing this. There is no reason to add qualifiers "according to xxx,". If we were to add qualifiers, then will need to add for all claims in this article and almost all of WP articles. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@Prodigyhk: Chung Tan writes on page 13, "There is a gold sheet with the design of four birds flying around the sun-deity which in my personal view is akin to a depiction of Surya". The admission, "in my personal view" is noteworthy. How about we quote Chung Tan exactly as above? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
This entire article(like any similar WP article), are based on opinions of the author cited. Will you add similar qualifier statement for every sentence ? Prodigyhk (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
No. You are mixing WP:Primary, with sources that review scholarship, or are secondary / tertiary WP:RS. I will accept your generic version if you present a reliable source for "Surya was worshipped in ancient China" or something equivalent. Even Chung Tan is not saying that, if you read the source carefully. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch:in this case the artifacts are the primary source; and author Chung's writing is the secondary. Chung is a reliable secondary source for us editors to cite.
Primary source - In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact.
WP:Secondary A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Prodigyhk (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Multan temple[edit]

@Willard84: I am reverting some of your edits because it is undue and WP:Coatrack. This is an article on Surya, and overemphasis about one temple, its Ismaili destruction, soapboxing about "Muslim world", attacking Richard Eaton etc is inappropriate. Per WP:BRD, please discuss. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

What is actually over-emphasized is the conflict surrounding the temple. You are choosing to display only the sets of facts which support conflict, while deleting details that show how the temple was freely allowed to also exist - which is important to note.
Secondly, the "attack" on Richard Eaton was not an attack at all. You misunderstood the point. The point was that you initially stated "Let's stick to scholarly sources," and what I replied was that a published book is no less a scholarly source than a journal article. So please, don't twist what I said about sources into an attack on Eaton himself. The only thing I was challenging was your logic that a published book is not as good a scholarly source as a journal.Willard84 (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Willard84: Let us keep the context and content focus to be Surya, the subject of this article. No side stories and coatracking. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)