|Bhagavata Purana has been listed as a level-5 vital article in an unknown topic. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bhagavata Purana article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"Advaita" in the Bhagavatam
The section on "Advaita" in the Bahgavatam is highly controversial considering that the Bhagavatam is used by Vaisnavas to attack Advaitism. Commentators on Bhagavatam have also noted that because of its strong support of the personhood of Godhead that Sankaracarya did not comment on the Bhagavatam. A much better explanation of any so-called "advaita" found in the Bhagavatam is explained in the Achintya Bheda Abheda tattva doctrine of the Gaudiya Sampradaya.van Lustig (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
What I find tragi-comical is that most of the referenced citations are from atheists for a text that is clearly theistic. What is their qualification for understanding it?van Lustig (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Sam van lustig: Please see WP:RS, then explain your concern with the cited secondary and tertiary sources by well established professors and reputed university-press publishers. Please be careful in casting aspersions or defaming living scholars, as that is not allowed in wikipedia, including this or other talk pages. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
This is complete nonsense. Sam is right. Atheists even if they own 20 PhDs are not competent to comment on any theistic text what to speak of the Bhagavata. Anyway now we know that you are a sphincter. And why I stopped linking to wiki-demons long ago. I often see people being disparaged for using wikipedia as a reference and it will only get worse. The don't call it wiki$h1t for nothing. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I often find the "Talk Page" more entertaining than the main article because this is where the truth of the matter is revealed. Ms "Squelch" wants that a theistic text be done over by a bunch of atheists with "PhD" after their name. This is why I stopped quoting wikipedia for anything and look to other sources instead.184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
From 'A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From stone age to 12th century by Upendra Singh' "The Besnagar pillar inscription indicates that the Shungas(Shunga dynasty) continued the Maurya tradition of entertaining ambassadors from Greek courts. Kasiputa Bhagabhadra is identified as the fifth Shunga king Bhadraka or ninth king Bhagavata. Amtalakita was the Indo-Greek ruler Antialkidas, known from coins. What is more even interesting is that Heliodorus, the Greek ambassador, describes himself as Bhagavata - i.e., a worshipper of God Vasudeva Krishna, and he set up this pillar in the honour of this God. The Garuda is a fantastic bird, the vehicle of Vishnu. The foundations of a structure near the pillar no doubt represent remains of the ancient Temple in front of which the Greek ambassador left an inscribed record of his devotion."
Some of the non-Indian writers have mentioned in the book that the Krishna (of Bhagavata Purana) has similarities with Greek God Apollo.
I have redirected Mahabhagavata Purana - that (unsourced) article appears to be another title for this work, but I am not certain of that. Can somebody please verify? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Lack of Focus on the Text Itself
It seems the bulk of content in this article concerns other books and articles about the Srimad Bhagavatam - themselves forming a hodgepodge of different views (atheistic, Christian, etc.), interpretations, and personal opinions - rather than the scripture itself. While there is no problem with sharing others' views, I do not see why they should be emphasised over the content of the scripture itself; I propose restructuring and re-writing the entire article to place a far greater emphasis on the content of the scripture. Carlduff (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: