Talk:Bhagavata Purana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Origin and Dating[edit]

I am not sure how is this related to origin and dating --

It has been also noted that Goudapada, the guru of Govinda, who was the teacher of Adi Shankara, mentions a verse of the Bhagavata in his Uttaragita-bhasya[15] as well as two other verses of Bhagavata Purana in his Sankhya-karika.[16]

Probably belongs to a different section, not this one. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that sentence was essentially paraphrased from this Hare Krishna webiste (or perhaps one of its mirrors), which says "But Gaudapada, teacher of Govinda who was teacher of Sankara, mentions the Bhagavatam in his Uttaragita-bhasya and in his commentary on Sankhya-karika makes reference to other two verses." Anyways, the detailed argument of its dating doesn't belong in this section, which is written in summary style to represent religious views and scholarly consensus, without going into detailed examination of the evidence that lead to those views. Abecedare (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It directly relates to the question of dating of the Bhagavata Purana, as if it was cited before Adi Sankara time, it is obviously related to the dating of the purana. (and no, it is not a paraphrase of cite that also makes a use of the same research. Wikidas© 07:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
In the website, they provide the context before they present this sentence. However, when added in isolation, this sentence is definitely out of place and sounds confusing as well. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not use the website for this reference, I agree that the sentence itself sounded out of place, and I have changed it to clarify how it directly relates to 'dating' - being pre-sankara - of the Purana. I hope it is acceptable as it is, since its clearly relating to dating of the Purana. Wikidas© 08:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I found the original source from where the sentence including the citations was copied. See this "MA thesis summary" (zip file) which says on page 7-8, "... Goudapada, the teacher of Govinda, who was teacher of Sankara, mentions a verse of the Bhâgavatam in his Uttaragita-bhasya[28] as well as two other verses of Bhâgavatam in his Sankhya-karika.[29]" with citations 28 and 29 matching the ones Wikidas added, without citing the source he had actually consulted. Incidentally this is a fringe source that concludes that

"Bhâgavatam was compiled in a period that goes from the end of Mahâbhârata age, at the beginning of Kali-yuga (3102 BC) and at the latest around 2600 BC, when the star Alpha Draconis was still in the Polar Axis and the Sarasvati still flowed. However, in spite of all the scientifically rigorous analysis presented in this investigation, we find that mainstream scholars are still very much opposed to this demonstration"

It would really help if we could avoid such POV pushing, mis-citations of non-RS sources, and adding fringe sectarian material in the future. Abecedare (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

While clearly this MA thesis is citing the same material, why is the view that Goudapada cited Bhagavata Purana is not acceptable for inclusion, It is not the MA Thesis that is being cited but the sources used in it. Thus your accusation is groundless to say the least. Wikidas© 08:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikidas you have been caught misrepresenting sources several times in the past and if you continue, you will be banned from wikipedia. A simple question: Did you actually read the two sources you cited ? If so, can you provide the corresponding quotes ? If not, you did miscite sources, especially considering that you left out the contradictory mainstream opinion that even the fringe "MA thesis" you used quoted. Abecedare (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
If anything in this case I can be accused of copyvio. It quoted it verbatim. Non of the accusations you personally brought against me ever held up, and I am very closely citing the sources. This source clearly relates to the fact that Goudapada, a well known grand-guru of Sankara is citing this Purana. It is also covered by "The Bhāgavata bhakti cult and three Advaita ācāryas, Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and Vallabha" by Ramnarayan Vyas, Nag Publishers, 1977, specifically in the pages 190-192. I am not citing these sources, but it is a fact that dating of the purana is being seen in a different light and the whole discussion on the influence of this Purana on Sankara may be mentioned as well. I have seen both the sources and the MA at the time I add this. As an admin you should know better as to treat others, there are many sources that corroborate to the fact that Goudapada has cited the Bhagavatam, besides the primary sources. Wikidas© 08:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you claim to have seen both the sources that you cited, can you:
  1. Specify what references 2 and 3 are in this snippet and explain why you cited the incorrect page number (just like the MA thesis did)?
  2. Can you provide the relevant quotes from "Majumdar, Bimanbehari. Krishna in History and Legend. University of Calcutta 1969, p. 61" ?
I'll be blunt with you: It is obvious that you are not being truthful in this instance, just has been the case in the past. If you wish to argue that none of the times you have been caught making up and/or misrepresenting sources "ever held up", I am willing to start a user RFC on you, which IMO will lead to you being banned from the project (I'll have to dig up the diff, but I can even quote you saying several months back that you had miscited sources in the past, but had stopped now). I would highly recommend that you admit error and more importantly, stop this disruptive and completely unacceptable behavior. Abecedare (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, this also seems to be a case of synthesis using two sources not directly related to dating. Neither of the references seem to talk directly about the dating, and support only the presence of verses. While this is perfectly acceptable for a MA thesis, I don't think it is possible in the article. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, the MA thesis was from "Instituto Bhaktivedanta de Ciencias y Humanidades A. C., Mexico (note the redlink), and is worth reading to see (1) its fringe claims, and (2) even the author admitting that his claims will not be accepted by actual scholars in the field ("admittedly the research presented here may not be sufficient to satisfy the specialists"; "we find that mainstream scholars are still very much opposed to this demonstration").
It's quite obvious that Wikidas essentially plagiarized this source, without attribution, and cited the other two without having taken a look at them. Incidentally, here are some earlier instances that I am aware of where he made up, misrepresented or selectively quoted sources to push a POV:
and now here. I think it is high-time such behavior which is so corrosive to encyclopedic content stops. Here is what the ARBCOM had to say in a similar case, and Wikidas has been told all this repeatedly over the past 2 years. Abecedare (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikidas, please try to be honest about your sources and stick to WP:RS. I suppose it is possible to construct an argument dating the BP to the 8th century, as it is impossible to date any classical Indian text better than with an error margin of at least 200 years, but such an argument would have to come from a serious source, and would need to be presented accurately, not via a mis-citation of a mis-citation. --dab (𒁳) 09:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the "Gaudapada cited the BP" idea originates in the 1930s with one Amarnath Ray [1] The idea can be referenced by pointing to perfectly pedestrian publications like Encyclopaedia of Hinduism, no need to introduce funky ISKCON "MA theses". Also note that the spelling "Goudapada" is a dead giveaway that we are looking at ISKCON literature ("Gouranga"), the chap is called Gauḍapāda in close transliteration, and lived in the 8th century. Was the BP composed in the 8th century? Or the 9th? Or the 10th? You've got me there. I would say that the BP is of about the same age as Beowulf. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Our article already states that the date range for BP is 5-10c , with ~9c being the most commonly accepted date (we even cite Hazra as one of the few exceptions, who prefers the 6th century dating). The problem is not that a pre-8th c date is being pushed, but rather that material taken from a fringe source is being presented out of context and being attributed to other sources, that not even Wikidas has seen. That prevents an honest evaluation of the material and source quality. Abecedare (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It is your choice to remove sources you do not like or if it is associated with a POV you do not like. You can use some records of the previous attacks on my sources as a tool, obviously it will lay on your conscience. This source different to others cited by MA I saw a year ago is clearly presenting a specific POV (that you for some reason trying to remove from the article. If you want you can bring it up on ARBCOM, but I would question your partiality on this, since there is a good record of your attempts to remove predominantly spread Gaudiya POV from a few articles and you may use your admin status for that, but should you not just mention the simple notion that Goudapada quotes Bhagavatam and that predates the Adi Sankara by some hundred years... Is it a POV or a simple fact that is very relevant to the date of the Purana... ?Wikidas© 10:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikidas, again please don't create a strawman. This is not a debate about any POV, but about your repeated dishonest presentation of sources. If you dispute that, please do answer the questions I asked above, and provide quote from the sources you cited, and claimed to have seen. Abecedare (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Look I cited sources you do not like, they are by Gaudiya scholars and associates. You do not like them and do not like the fact that this funky MA thesis is using them. I do not have scans of these and I only seen them with MA. Are you based on this will deny that Encyclopaedia of Hinduism should not be cited? Obviously it discusses the dating in detail and is presenting same facts (and more facts) on the earlier dating then the Gaudapada. Look at the above discussion, it is all about Gaudiya presentation. But lets put it aside, are you prepared to have a sentence here clearly stating that because it quoted by 7th century commentator Gaudapada, the later dating is put into a question. Thanks dab for the RSs, I had trouble finding it due to the spelling mistake in that funky MA source I used. Wikidas© 10:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for at last admitting that you cited sources that you had not seen and that you lied before when you claimed otherwise ("I have seen both the sources and the MA at the time I add this.")! Such dishonesty makes it very difficult to trust anything you say, and work collaboratively with you. You really need to stop such conduct, if you wish to continue editing on wikipedia. Two years is a long enough period to have learned better.
As for the content issue: even if you read the thesis itself, you'll see that most scholars dispute the evidence you are citing. Even then, the article correctly summarizes the that BP was composed sometime in the 5-10c period (which includes the pre-8th c conjecture), and that 9th c is the most widely, though not universally, accepted date. Getting into a detailed discussion of the evidence that leads scholars to this conclusion, is beyond the scope of this summary style article - although I would encourage you to read the cited sources (Kumar Das, Matchett, van Buitenen etc), instead of wasting your and our time (selectively) quoting from a fringe MA thesis. Abecedare (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You are making such a fuss out of quoting from the fringe MA thesis, and accusing me of not seeing it. Why do you do it? Why a simple logical statement that Gaudapada quoted it according to some is out of the range of this 'summary style'. If it is a summary style - then a full article should be written on the subject, otherwise what is it summary of? If anything the section should be expanded. Any reasons on not expanding the section? Did I quote anything that makes this section a fringe? Did I even mention the fringe MA thesis in the citation? Stop this attack and lets write down based on the RS as per above. Wikidas© 10:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Why have you claimed that (diff) I quote a Hare Krishna website (when I didn't)? You know that it is being used as a source to the Hare Krishna views; and thus you are just trying to put me down (before even discovering the MA thesis), it is clearly not about the actual article's content, you are just trying to dismiss it off hand and then accusing me of lying, when you present your assumptions as the fact first. (an interesting move, light the fire and then accuse others of creating a strawman) Wikidas© 11:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry but I not going to argue or explain this any further. Feel free to start an RFC or get a third opinion, if you wish - although you should be aware that further disruption is likely to lead to you being sanctioned for persistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Abecedare (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You do not need to, you have already agreed to expand the article and your input is valued! RS are there and the fact that it was written and known before Gaudapada is worth mentioning; WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - it is something u should note and use; but remember it is not your article, and anyone who has good RS is free to add material as well as question the sources. I am going to expand the section about the date of the Bhagavata using the RS above, and I appreciate the help of other editors who supplied these sources after my edits. Can you try to be less antagonistic Abe? Nevermind Wikidas© 11:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikidas, the article already gives a range from 500-1000 CE, using the very best sourcing. Any fringe or even little known scholar who also puts the date in that range is unnecessary. Because of your history, I suggest you propose additions here and reach consensus first. I think the article actually bends over backwards to point out that the date range is referring only to the final written text, not on the origin of the Bhagavata itself, which can't ever be proven (using real sources, anyway). The pattern of falsifying sources to promote a POV is much more serious. If there is an RfC (which I don't have the time to start), I think that a topic ban on Krishna- and Hinduism-related articles wouldn't be overreaching. Priyanath talk 16:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

sheesh, I didn't see the 500 CE lower estimate. Then why oh why are we prancing about some obscure references saying "may predate 800 CE"? We already say it may predate 800 CE, by as much as three centuries! Now 500 CE would be an extremely early date for the composition of any Purana. As Priyanath is saying, we are already bending over backwards to accommodate the "my ancient texts are more ancient than your ancient texts" mentality exhibited by Wikidas. Please let it rest now, there is nothing to see here. dab (𒁳) 18:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to suggest it is ancient or not, I just wanted to see reference of its age to the landmark of Sankara. I feel it is important, as the most common argument (besides common Vopadeva story that I keep hearing) is that Sankara did not comment on it and did not refer to it thus it must be post Adi Sankara. Why you keep putting words in my mouth? Wikidas© 20:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
you "wanted to see reference of its age to the landmark of Sankara"? Shankara lived in the 9th century. By saying that estimates range from 500 to 1000 we are already saying BP may predate or postdate Shankara. If you have academic literature that add further points, present it, but stop making a fuss over nothing at all. Also, stop trying to sneak in non-academic ISKCON-type literature into the dating question. --dab (𒁳) 15:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree - if there are very high quality academic sources that can add to the dating, then let's hear about them on the talk page. Right now the article reflects the highest quality sources, which is as it should be for such an important article. Let's keep it that way. Priyanath talk 20:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that in cases where there are significant traditions providing their own versions and sources they should be allowed to at least be mentioned, on their own merits, so to speak. For example, if some of the major Vaishnava sampradayas, like the Gaudiyas, Vallabhas, Nimbarka etc, have their own traditional datings for the Bhagavata Purana, why not simply allow them to be mentioned? What's the harm? (I am not saying that every little fringe sect with their own version should have to clutter space here, but I am talking about major lineage.) Otherwise there is a risk that Wikipedia becomes monopolized by the academic version. Harmoniser (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Harmoniser makes a very good suggestion, why should the acedemic version hold a monoploy? As a general rule Academia is not a friend of Indian culture, civilization or history. Even though individual academics my be charming and some may even be exceptions. Why do I say that? The answer is covered in the following books that you can either purchase or down load for free.

“Invading the Sacred”

Book’s home page

Publishers homepage where you can download the book

Amazon description

The other book is “The Battle for Sanskrit”

Description on Amazon

Home page

A review from home page:

"The Battle for Sanskrit wrests open a main gate to the predominantly western constructed citadel known as Indology. Who can remain silent or, worse, collaborate, in the face of groundless allegations that Indian elites are promulgating Sanskrit and its traditions for political gain, thus perpetuating a so-called Sanskrit-born social abuse? As the linguistic key to the highest wisdom of humanity, Sanskrit studies must escape captivity enforced by academic guardians who over-zealously wield the club of Western theoretical methods. The author, besides exposing the colonial baggage still colouring the western approach to India’s Sanskrit heritage, also shines his torch, in fairness, upon the large platoon of Indian sepoys colluding as mercenaries to help keep the Sanskrit potentiality in check. A salient point this book offers us is that the Western approach to Sanskrit is often weighed down by “political philology”—cultural biases, hegemonic filters. Superbly presenting the positive correction to this imbalance, the author advocates our seeing through the lens of “sacred philology." H.H. DEVAMITRA SWAMI, Spiritual Leader and Author of Searching for Vedic India.

Download the book

Thus when dealing with the academe we should keep in the fore front that we are dealing with hostiles with an agenda. So to singularly promote the POV of academia is not neutral. Let the traditions speak for themselves rather than by biased outsiders. Or at least let both versions be known. Why should their version of their own tradition be squelched in favor of outsider opinions?van Lustig (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead section image[edit]

Bhagavata Purana manuscript, 18 century.jpg

I thought that the image here is a much better illustration of the Bhagavata Purana as an ancient text, being a hi-rez and good quality image of the original manuscript with illustrations. This is what, IMHO, the lead section image should illustrate. The current image of Krishna holding the Govardhan, while being nice and aesthetically pleasing, serves less to illustrate the article on the Bhagavata Purana as an ancient text than the proposed image does. It can still be used, but should be demoted to the body of the article. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Replacing the image with another image of the manuscript and illustrations, but with a more prominent episode.--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's good. However, the resolution is a bit too low. Is it possible to find the same or similar manuscript image of a better quality, with a view of nominating it for FP (as I was hoping to)? Also, it is unclear for me what should take preference – image quality or its arbitrary content prominence? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I've just replaced your image with its hi-rez version, albeit not high enough for a FP nomination. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"Advaita" in the Bhagavatam[edit]

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)

Using atheists as authorities on the Bhagavatam[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bhagavata Purana. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

sri mad bhagvat its profit[edit]

Kalloodwivedi (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC) it is most holy book written by Ved Vyas originally in Sanskrit . it talks about salvation in Indian philosophy. within limited time ie. 7 days how can a person get salvation. in brief it narrates all avtars of Narayan ie. there is story of lord Vishnu. lord narayan lord kapil lord narsigh lord rama, lord krishna etc and his main devotees. there is confluence o knowledge and devotion , traditions of all hindu sector are given equal importance.a person get salvation by love and devotion by dedication. the story of child krishna is attracting .in nutshell Naraian is omnipresent omnipotent . he kind and should seek his asylum with full belief and faith. do not bother . move towards lord krishna he will give heavenly and worldly pleasure. i myself experienced it. kalloo prasad dwivedi lucknow.