Talk:Bhagavad Gita

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleBhagavad Gita was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 15, 2008Good article nomineeListed
December 18, 2011Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 10, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
August 15, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
September 24, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
October 25, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

GAR[edit]

Bhagavad Gita[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delisted Although the nomination for re-assessment is rather vague, I found a number of long outstanding citation needed tags and dead links. The prose could certainly do with a brush up and the organization of the article is poor. I would suggest a thorough clean up, followed by a peer review before renominating at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I request the re-assessment of the article bhagavad gita, because :

  • The article does not provide relevant information in the relevant section.
  • The introductory paragraph sounds awkward,as it contains referenced appraisal by some other persons, which is not the way to introduce a major book of a major religion of the world and may not represent a worldwide view of the topic.
  • The article, related to a major religious book is relatively less informative and neutral than the other major religious books of the world , like quran,bible or guru granth sahib.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bineetojha (talkcontribs) 09:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)‎
    • Comment: I see no evidence that primary editors or projects have been informed, which you should do. I fixed the article talk page as the GAR template had not been transcluded. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christian Propaganda[edit]

The Bhagawad Gita has first spoken exactly 5200 years ago. There is ONLY one single version of the Gita. Christians propagandits want us to believe that Gita "evolved" bla bla undermining the fact that Gita was spoken by God and is being continuosly protected by God since then. The first section of this article is RUBBISH and I'm in no mood to read further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:7A:401:2F22:3489:6002:55D1:6FE (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no Christian Propaganda. This is the what historians and research have found so far. The same case applies to any other religious texts. Have you not read what the Wikipedia says about the Bible? There is no exact date for the Gita so far, and there's no proof that it was written by God. It was written by humans. Knightplex (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

lawsuits filed[edit]

Is there any info on lawsuits filed for use of the gita in courts. Most of bhagvad gita laws seem dubious and catering to female psychology and appears to make decisions very difficult.

If there are none maybe someone with contacts to indian courts should propose abandonement of the bahgvad gita, it is heavily influenced by female psychology anyways and is not core hindu belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.179.143.173 (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bhagavad Gita. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

German anti-semitismSection: "Use in German anti-Semitism"[edit]

This ection seems undue to me (I've already attributed it):

[According to Vishwa and Joydeep], German indologists arbitrarily identified "layers" in the Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita with the objective of fuelling European anti-Semitism via the Indo-Aryan migration theory.[151] This required equating Brahmins with Jews, resulting in anti-Brahminism.[151]

The reference is as follows: Vishwa, Adluri. Bagchee Joydeep (2014). The Nay Science: A History of German Indology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 289–426. That's 137 pages... Someone tell me where exactly this "info" is given in this source? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC) NB: it probably must be pages 156-313, which contain chapter three, "The search for the original Gita". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

All I can see are snippets surrounding search terms, so lack of context could be a problem, but from p.306 I get “Further, for all that German Indologists claimed to be concerned with Brahmanic oppression of the lower castes, they made no serious efforts at its abatement. Their Brahmans were creatures of their own imagination, caricatures of rabbis drawn with brown chalk.” Nothing about textual layers in this particular passage, but the thrust of the criticism seems to be that the epic was depicted as an original expression of Aryan warrior-caste culture having been corrupted by the decadent, effete priestly class that became its custodians & transmitters. (There are numerous hits for “layers” throughout the book.) BTW I think the authors’ names are getting mixed up: in the section as it stands now they’re cited by their surnames at the beginning and by their forenames at the end, and here you give them inverted.—Odysseus1479 17:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
JJ, see HERE. They summarized their book with page numbers.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Reviews:
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The main point of critique by Adluri and Bagchee apparently is not that German Indology was anti-semitic, but that their search for the 'original core' of texts like the Mahabharata was influenced by questionable assumptions, which in turn were influenced by Protestantism and the search for a German identity. They also seem to critique an overly "rational" approach to religious texts, which loses sight of the philosophical and pedagogical use and value of texts. See John R. Lenz, From philology to philosophy: Plato, Nietzsche, Classics, and The Nay Science: "The Nay Science reminds us what the humanities should be: the ethical education of the self, with awareness of mortal human existence in the cosmos. In short: even scholars need to use books to change their lives; and if they don’t, who will?" A valuable and readworthy critique, I think - which may be bypassed by highlighting the specific comments which were used in the quoted passage above from the Wiki-article. Yet, it's also what the authors themselves highlight:

It is this same absence of concern with ethical questions that we found most troubling about Nicholson’s review and that, aside from his technical confusions, prompted us to write this response: In a book that is entirely about how Indian studies were used to fashion anti-Semitic narratives in Germany we fail to understand how someone can review the work and fail to mention anti-Semitism even once. Oversight? Or, possibly, a decision to downplay the problem of anti-Semitism in German Indology? The theme of anti-Semitism connects chapter with chapter, building up to the conclusion that German Indology was institutionally and methodologically anti-Semitic. p.5-6

yet, I wonder if this belongs here, or at Indology or a another, related page? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hudson's Pancaratra Agama[edit]

I have the The Roots of Tantra on my shelf. There was a small para in this article that seems to have misunderstood what Hudson is stating. The primary discussion therein is about Pancaratra Agama in context of a relief in a temple's vimana, not what this article alleged. I have removed it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You are obviously removing it because of the human sacrifice stuff. But don't you want to show that the Bhagavad Gita is continuous with the Vedas?VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Which page does Hudson state that it is about human sacrifice? Hudson is stating that there is parallelism in some ideas found in the Vedic literature, some chapters of the Bhagavad Gita, the temple relief panel he is describing and the Pancaratra Agama. A few sentences about that parallelism would be okay to summarize somewhere. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Hudson gives a standalone explanation of Bhagavata thought that is independent of the temple relief. He says "Let us consider each in light of Bhagavata thought" on page 155 and then proceeds to explain Bhagavata thought.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Several problems! Bhagavata can mean Bhagavata Purana or Bhagavata tradition, neither mean Bhagavad Gita! In the sentence, "Let us consider each in light of Bhagavata thought", he means "thought in Bhagavata tradition", not "thought in Bhagavad Gita". Elsewhere he specifically mentions Srimad Bhagavata which is same as Bhagavata Purana. His chapter is all about Pancaratra Agama.... a part of the Bhagavata tradition. But, let us remember the subject of this article, let us avoid a mess. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I know he means the Bhagavata tradition.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Very little to say about this; just that "It is Bhagavata explanation of the Purusha Sukta and the Purushamedha Srauta yajna described in the Satapatha Brahmana" is abracadabra to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Its missing an "a". It should be "It is a..."VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
JJ: Yep, it is gobbledygook and I have removed it. VictoriaGrayson: I don't see support for what you added. Please identify the page number where he concludes or states what you allege he does. I don't see it on pages 155-163 of the Hudson source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Its certainly way more supported than what you say. Hudson doesn't say Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita states that the name Vasudeva means the shining one who "dwells in all things and in whom all things dwell". This is what Hudson says:

Third, the story illustrates the meaning of the name Vasudeva, the shining one (deva) who dwells (vasu) in all things and in whom all things dwell.

There is nothing about Krishna stating this. This is a quote of Dennis Hudson. Not Krishna.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson: Instead of providing the page number, you go your usual way... cryptic criticism/attack or strange comments! Let us consider your comment then. In the sentence you quote, you misunderstand the context of the story. Hudson makes this more explicit and clear on page 159, starting in the ninth line from the top. Hudson writes, "Krsna (the acarya) drew his disciple Arjuna's attention to himself and his own identity as Vasudeva who is Purusa Narayana, the Shining One who indwells all things and in whom all things dwell". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
You state that "dwells in all things and in whom all things dwell" is a direct quote of Krishna. This is false.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Instead of, "states that the name Vasudeva means the shining one who 'dwells in all things and in whom all things dwell', according to Hudson.[91][note 8]" would you be okay with "identified himself as Vasudeva, the Shining One who 'indwells all things and in whom all things dwell', according to Hudson.[91][note 8]"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Just delete the whole section. I don't care about the Hudson chapter, except for a couple of pages.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Joshua Jonathan and VictoriaGrayson: I have again removed the content contested earlier. It was re-added in February 2018. I also re-added back the section with a better summary. With this edit you allege that it contains "false quotes". Which quote is false? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Its explained right above. I also explained at ANI. You use false quotes all the time. For example on the Buddhism page.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: No I don't. If I did, please provide evidence. Once again, please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Admin Vanamonde93 warned you. There is an active discussion involving multiple editors on the Buddhism talk page. There is no "false quote" there or here, and there is no need to repeat that discussion here. Please provide specifics here from Hudson or whatever source with a page number. I will do my best to clarify, or correct if I erred. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hudson doesn't say Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita states that the name Vasudeva means the shining one who "dwells in all things and in whom all things dwell". This is what Hudson says:

Third, the story illustrates the meaning of the name Vasudeva, the shining one (deva) who dwells (vasu) in all things and in whom all things dwell.

You state that "dwells in all things and in whom all things dwell" is a direct quote of Krishna. This is false.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson: The article states, "Krishna similarly, in the Bhagavad Gita, identified himself as Vasudeva, the Shining One who 'indwells all things and in whom all things dwell'." Hudson on pages 156-157 states, "Third, the story illustrates the meaning of the name Vasudeva, the shining one (deva) who dwells (vasu) in all things and in whom all things dwell. It also illustrates the meaning of Visnu, the pervading actor. Krsna identified himself with both names and their meanings when he taught Arjuna." Wikipedia's copyvio guideline urges us to try to "summarize in our own words". I think what the article states is a reasonable restatement of those three sentences in Hudson (last two lines on page 156 and first two on page 157). If there is a better revised version, I am open to it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Um no. You are manufacturing a quote of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
For the sake of a consensus, how about we paraphrase Hudson more closely? For example, "A story in Shathapatha Brahmana, states Hudson, illustrates the meaning of the name Vasudeva as the 'shining one (deva) who dwells (vasu) in all things and in whom all things dwell', as well as the meaning of Vishnu to be the 'pervading actor'. In Bhagavad Gita, Krishna identified himself as Vasudeva and Vishnu and their meanings to Arjuna." It is too close to Hudson's words, so we need to attribute. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)