Talk:Dattatreya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hinduism (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject India (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Who is Rigopoulos?[edit]

The article seems to make several references to this person? Neither Wikipedia nor Google seems to have any reference on him. Suggest that these references be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.121.73 (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

have been following the work of several of the prominent scientists to come up with a theory of everything. It seems that in this search of everything, one most important thing has not been considered. Who am I? I am in this universe as much as it is in I. What is I? I is n-sphere full of love. Imagination is more important than knowledge for all that we know is just an imagination. The language and the medium of this communication are also products of imagination. Reality as it seems can be termed as implementation of imagination. It is not mind over matter, it is only mind that matters. I am the sum total of my thoughts, I is the calculator.

According to E=MC2, mass gets converted to energy when it travels at the speed of light. Thoughts travel faster than light. S=BM2 (S-Soul, B-Body, M-Mind). Create a body with a thought, destroy the body with a thought and find the inner most self, Soul. We are not our bodies, we are not our minds, we are our inner most self (singularity).

If universe is the meaning of understanding of one’s surroundings, then it is created with every birth and destroyed with every death. Universe is in a steady big bang state. Multiverse is just multiple interpretations made by bodies and minds of the conscience (soul or singularity). What one perceives of self (soul) is not the same as another, this is the multiverse with in the universe that we live in. The moment a thought arises the universe comes to existence. If one can still the mind to absoluteness then there will be absolutely nothing. This state of absoluteness is called Nirvana (Moksha), immortality. One who knows thy self is immortal.

If life is the meaning of our relative existence on this planet then we were all dead even before we were born, so why fear death as we all have already experienced death. On this planet only one being, human, seems to care for Time dimension while all other species do not. If we only understand the perception of other beings dimensions sharing this planet would we appreciate the beauty of it all. There can be as many dimensions as we choose to have. There is no time until one chooses to count. Time is the space between all of us and in time we shall all be one (singularity). For every action there is equal and opposite reaction, there is also inaction at the point of their interaction. It is this inaction in all of us that creates the actions and the consequent reactions.

Death is to a person, as black hole is to a star. As light cannot escape black holes gravity and time does not exist beyond singularity, so does a dead person cannot see light or does not have perception of time. Dark Matter / Dark Energy are only as dark as our thoughts. Lets weigh our thoughts in and we would have the total mass / energy of the universe. The moment when one stops thinking is when one sees the true light of love in the heart. Some think that universe is expanding, some think that universe is contracting, some think that universe is eternal, I know that universe is what we want it to be.

The theory of everthing is that there is absolutely nothing, God is absolute state of mind, soul that is everything and nothing, we are relative states of mind, bodies that are something in between. Happiness and sorrow are relative states of mind, absolute state of mind is peaceful.

Theory of everything that I have put forth can be represented using a 3-sphere with S=BM2 equation. This representation with a 4 dimensional 3-sphere is for human beings on this planet and there can be n - sphere manifestation of I, that is how there can be as many dimensions as one wishes beyond human life. Truth will be realized by everyone at their time of death.

"I" is the equation for nothing and everything and can only be represented but not contained by n-sphere also.

There is only "one" singularity in the relativistic universe, there is only "Singualrity" in the absolute universe and we are all in it.

I am one of your kind and I is every one of all kinds.

If I do not exist, absolutely nothing or singularity does exist. As I realized that I is the singualrity, I will always exist. Only singularity or death is uncertain in the relativistic universe. Only singularity or I is certain in the absolute universe.

Truth is simple, accepting it is not. Be in Love to Rest in Peace.

Love, Sridattadev. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.130.75 (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Now I see why the article is the way it is. Harsimaja (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Upanishad quote[edit]

The use being made of the Upanishad quote is completely bogus. The quote itself says only, "in the guise of a child, a madman, a devil". It does not say that Dattatreya is "the personification of evil". That is a Wikipedia editor's personal opinion. THAT is the part the needs a citation. Whose interpretation is it? Are they reputable? I see a quote that implies that Dattatreya seems like but is not (i.e. "in the guise of") a child, a mad-man or a devil. It doesn't say he is a devil and even if it did, the cultural meaning is not the same as the western "Devil". This is simply being used as an excuse to insert sectarian bullshit. -999 (Talk) 22:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The upanishad quote which has been a part of the ATHARVA VEDA is not a "BOGUS QUOTE", to call it sectarian is even more bogus. It's like Christians denying the New Testament.

It's not the quote I object to. Don't you get it? It's the uncited interpretation of the quote. You can't add that without saying whose opinion or interpretation it is. Without that, the quote is meaningless in context. It is only being used to insert a BOGUS OPINION about what it might mean. -999 (Talk) 22:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The translation might be questioned, but a Pisacha is a demonic spirit...The Datatreya Upanishad is found in the original sanskrit online.

--Shravak 22:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

But it doesn't say he is a pisacha. It says he can appear in the guise of one. I'm not ignorant of Sanskrit. I disagree that it means what you and Green are trying to make it mean. -999 (Talk) 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, as long as this critical information from a major text is included--Shravak 22:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. Dattat 23:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Curious, who do you agree with, Dattat? My opinion is that the quote was taken out of context and used to make a point not intended by the text. 999 has very rightly expanded the quote by including context. It now cannot possibly be made to mean that Dattatreya is "the personification of evil" or a devil or anything of the sort. Are you guys ISKCON? —Hanuman Das 01:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
So that's why I got called a sockpuppet? Because you don't agree? Wow! You guys throw your weight around here! Dattat 17:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope, because it was your very first edit and you made the very same change that another user had just been pushing into the article to the point of being blocked for it. Coincidence? I don't think so. -999 (Talk) 17:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to understand your complaint, Dattat. I never called you a sockpuppet. Apparently, 999 has, and somehow because I agree with him about your edit (actually, it seems it was originally Green23's edit, then Shravak's edit) then it is my fault too? I don't follow your reasoning...unless you are Green23 and you are mad because I reverted his edits, because I haven't touched the article since you started editing it. —Hanuman Das 01:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

New material[edit]

Thanks, Palaviprabhu, for all the new material. But there are just so many formatting problems with it that I had to revert it. I will be reading it a section at a time while removing the formatting problems. Several things you should know: only the first word of headings should be capped, and bold font should not be overused, typically it is only used in the first paragraph to bold the subject of the article. Also, try not to break up sections written by other editors. And try not to introduce linke breaks into paragraphs, it makes the diffs hard to read. —Hanuman Das 13:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have reintegrated the new material in what I think is a better organization. I think I got it all, but if I missed anything please bring it up here on the talk page so we can discuss how best to integrate it. —Hanuman Das 14:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

hi, HanumanDAs, thanks for the re-editing trouble. It reads + looks much better. Somehow my style of editing was different. Also I am new to this. About removing some parts, I have removed may be one or two lines of the previous article. Somehow I felt that Mahendranath quotes were uncessary. But since it was part of the old article version, I did not delete it unless there is some discussion and unanimity to remove it. I need to revise the NAth tradition as well. That is not fully complete. Later as time permits I will add more Saints in the Dattatreya tradition in an additional section. thanks once again. About the "Upanishad " discussion above, this "Pishach" word is used to depict the abnormal behavior. The Literal meaning of this word is "Ghost" in Marathi. But it is also used to show the following type of behavior: WEar no clothes, no bath taking, stay in mud, Have jata (hair strangled together with some gum) with some extreme ones as, eat human flesh, eat animal flesh (raw) and live in crematoriums. The last 3 things were part of Aghori tradition and were changed by Gorakhnath. But the other ones still remain and you will find that the behavior of some of the saints is like that. so the English word "Devil" may not be appropriate, however, using the word "Ghost" also may not be appropriate. The word, "ghastly" might be close. anyway. its your call.Palaviprabhu 16:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that whole section about pishach could in my opinion be removed. It was put in by someone trying to "prove" that Dattatreya is the "personification of evil" and some sockpuppets kept putting it back simply to mess with myself and 999, but they have now been blocked. I will take it out and see if anyone insists on putting it back, since it has been made clear the the quote in context doesn't mean what they want to make it mean.
With respect to Mahendranath, much of the information in the Dattatreya as an historical figure section came from his works. Now that that has been broken up, I'll need to go in and cite it. I personally would prefer to leave in the Mahendranath quote, as he is my guru. —Hanuman Das 18:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the ancient Sanskrit texts have been misinterpreted,which shows the great Guru in poor light. Please ensure that only one, who is capable and well versed in Sanskrit can interpret the texts properly.Any slight changes in the way the texts are interpreted leads to fully erroneous results.Please make sure before blindly re-editing the text.

Useful Resource of Articles[edit]

Namaste to all,

Articles about Lord Dattatreya is a good resource of information. It covers good details in spiritually scientific way. I have added it as external link. Please review and comment your views on this page. GlobalStudy (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mahendranath reference[edit]

I agree that the Mahendranath source may be an unreliable source for the article. It appears to be self-published as an internet page only and is not a book. If anyone can provide an ISBN # or book info, it would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I favor removing the sourced information to Mahendranath. WikiUserTalk 07:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Various scholars and devotees mentioned[edit]

I do not doubt the sincerity or overall correctness of the writers who contributed the long sections on the various scholars and devotees in the second half of the article, but a lot of them do not seem to be very well known - to avoid notability problems, could you please provide sources? Harsimaja (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio?[edit]

Some content is reproduced in [1]. Archive.org is down ATM, and I am not an expert in figuring who copied from who (us or them). Ping User:Moonriddengirl/User:Nikkimaria, I am sure you guys can at least post it at the right place for people to look into. At least some content was copied to Manik Prabhu. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

While I can't preclude copying from somewhere, I am happy to say that it does not seem content was copied from that page, but rather the other way around. :) We see here a classic sign of natural evolution. I can check for more if you like, but that kind of thing convinces me - it's unlikely, obviously, that somebody would have copied from them, but with minor differences, that somebody else later changed back. Thanks for looking into it, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Improve[edit]

Can i add references from the magazines published legally with no copyright issues about Lord Dattatreya from Maharashtra and Karnataka states, One Ph.d degree holder professor has also published a small booklet, can i add them? Ankush 89 (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio[edit]

The copyvio tool found a staggering 99.4% copyright violation. Ogress smash! 08:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Nath Adiguru[edit]

This seems an absurd statement. Dattātreya first appears (not as a god at all, but as a sage) in Vaiṣṇav texts like the Dattātreya Yoga Śastra. He is part of an open, anti-tantric, haṭha yoga movement in vaiṣṇavism that rejected tantra's secular teaching and reliance on initiation. James Mallinson writes all about him and translates the Dattātreya Yoga Śastra. I can't find the reference, but I believe he said that the Nāthas actually have a strong dislike for Dattātreya as he undermines their attempts to lay claim to yoga since Svatmarama. No text to my knowledge connects him to the Nātha sampradaya. This statement has no source given and seems a random assertion. The Nāth's Adiguru is Śiva and first teacher is given either as Matsyendra or Gorakṣa and their deity orientation is to Devi and the Yoginis. The much later Kaula text the Haṭha [Yoga] Pradīpikā lists the lineage of Nāths as "Shiva, Matsyendra, Shabara, Anandabhairava, Chaurangi, Mina, Goraksha, Virupaksha, Bileshaya, Manthana, Bhairava, Siddhi, Buddha, Kanthadi, Korantaka, Surananda, Siddhapada, Charpati, Kaneri, Pujyapada, Nityanatha, Niranjana, Kapali, Bindunatha, Kakachandishvara, Allama Prabhudeva, Ghodacholi, Tintini, Bhanuki, Naradeva, Khanda, and Kapalika." No mention of Dattātreya. Can anyone defend or source this dubious connection? Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

"Dattātreya has only ever been associated with the Nāth Sampradāya in the Deccan region, and the formalization of that association dates to approximately the 18th century, when texts such as the Marathi Navanāthabhaktisāra sym-bolically united the Nāth Sampradāya with the → Mahānubhāv sect by identifying nine Nāths with nine Nārāyan" -Mallinson, James 'Nath Sampraday, p.4

Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)