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

Error in dates![edit]

In the article on Mahabharata , the origins of the epic are mentioned as 8th century BCE i.e. 800 years before Christ . And in this article the period of the author vyas is mentioned as 3rd millennium BC i.e. 3000 years before Christ .. obviously a mistake !! Leningrad (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


I presume that this is an aspect of Hindu mythology? --Robert Merkel 03:50, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes. also Hindu belief. some people get offended when it is called mythology suggesting it may not have happened. - Hemanshu 03:53, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That is true, regardless of the specific religion, but there's no other suitable term AFAICT. Does the story of Vyasa have a specific written source? If so, we could describe him it as "according to source foo, an important text of Hinduism...
The term "Hindu tradition" is possibly a better term than "Hindu mythology".LFlagg (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


Badarayana redirects here, but the word Badarayana does not appear anywhere in the text, and Talk:Badarayana is blank. If this is just another name for Vyasa, could someone clarify that? Also, if it's a special ceremonial name or something like that, that should also be noted in the article. Thanks. --skoosh (háblame) 04:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right - there are some questions around whether Badarayana - author of Brahma Sutras - was the same as Veda Vyasa, who is also known as Krishna Dvaipayana.

Jaimini, author of Purva Mimansa Sutra, refers to Badarayana e.g. Mimansa Sutra 1.1.5. Jaimini was also a pupil of Veda Vyasa Krishna Dvaipayana. Badarayana also quotes Jaimini in Brahma Sutra.

It is also the contention of some scholars such as TS Narayana Sastri, in Age of Sankara, that

1. Veda Vyasa Krishna Dvaipayana was different from Badarayana, author of Brahma Sutra 2. Brahma Sutra was a work initiated by Badarayana but completed by a disciple of Badarayana 3. Adi Shankaracharya was aware of this distinction and mentions this disciple by the term Sutrakara (compiler of Sutras)

For Age of Sankara, please refer to

--Ashish chandr70 (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Arthashastra version[edit]

The Arthashastra version compares the Vrishnis' attempt on Vyasa to Vatapi's attempt on Agastya, but it should be noted that the latter was very unsuccesful and Vatapi died. The reference to "some scholars" needs citations. --Grammatical error 19:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Replaced link to pirate site[edit]

The external link for "Srimad Bhagavatam (Bhagavata Purana)" led to a site that knowingly, persistently, and extensively bootlegs copyrighted artwork.

I have kept the link but changed the URL to that of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, who provide the complete text (and who happen to be the owner of the bootlegged art).

Further information is available from the rights and permissions department of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust,

The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Wikipedia:Copyrights, in Section 4.3, "Linking to copyrighted works."

O Govinda 18:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

About his name 'veda vyaasa'[edit]

An excerpt from Swami Dayananda's book "Satyarth Prakash":

When Vyasa read the Vedas and taught them to others and thereby disseminated their knowledge, he was named Veda Vyasa. Now Vyasa (in Sanskrit) means the diameter (of a circle) which is a line that passes right through the center of a circle from one end to the other Vyasa was called so, because he read and mastered all the four Vedas, from the Rig Veda to the Atharva Veda, and taught them to his pupils such as Shuka and Jaimini. Vyasa was his title only. His real name was Krishna Dwipayana. --Leafy 17:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Please include a date of Vedavyasa's existence and the approximate date when he wrote down the Vedas. Thankyou. Sanatana Dharman 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I actually wanted to inquire for the dates only, but I couldn't find it anywhere in the article. S Kaushik wiki (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

I've started a major clean up. Among the changes I made, the following were mostly reverted the last time I made them, hence detailed reasoning.

  • 1.the island being near Kalpi – if it is to be said unambiguously that it is near Kalpi, then it needs a reference. The only information in the two copies of the MB that I have, (which includes Vol. 1 of van Buitenen's detailed translation) is by implication, an association of Satyavati with the Chedi kingdom.
  • 2.Dwaipayana rather than Dvaipayana – there is a distinction in English usage between v and w. This is often personal since the actual sound varies between languages of India, but the scholarly usage is to use the 'v' in such cases, especially as it is the 'v' in Sanskrit. There is no v-w distinction in Sanskrit. The most common usage is Vyasa, not Krishna Dvaipayana.
  • 3.'Together these make the name Krishna-Dwaipayana. '. Superfluous and unnecessary, unless in a list of name forms.
  • 4.'populous of the Kali yuga' – populous is the wrong word, this is presumably meant to mean 'populace'. Vyasa's work enabled all people to understand the Vedas, not just those of his time. Also note the lack of explanation of the yuga he was born in – reference to the dvapara yuga shortly after. The word populace has the same sense as the word 'people' but the latter is simpler and better English in this context.
  • 5.'He was the editor of the Vedic literature. ' This is a very tall statement, since the Vedic literature implies much more than the Vedas. For instance, it arguably includes the Upanishads, which are a commentary on them. If it meant that he was the editor of the Vedas, that has already been said.
  • 6.'Rishi (Sages)'. There is a link from Rishi, and sage is an inexact translation.

Imc 18:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Imc - I agree with your above arguments and last edits except for the spelling of Dwaipayana with a v. Pheonetically it should really be Dwaipayan in my opinion - which is also by far the most common form of spelling on a Google search. I reverted before more because of wording than content. Thank you for coming back and changing things. Hare Krishna, Gouranga(UK) 20:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Google is a completely reliable method of counting those things indexed by Google. Try comparing Krishna Dwaipayan to Krishna Dwaipayana. Imc 21:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Since there's been no response to the above, I'll state it more clearly. The google search is irrelevant, since most of the hits are to modern people with the name Dwaipayan, the name being of Bengali and Hindi origin it would appear. Since we have a practice here in Hinduism articles of using the Sanskrit name, the hits to the Bengali/Hindi name should be ignored, which you can to some extent by carrying out the two word searches given above. As for the v / w thing, the argument I made previously still stands, it should be v for Sanskrit transliterations. It is assumed in general that it is Sanskrit for most Hinduism articles. If a Hindi name is being transliterated it should be stated. Imc 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems hardly worth the debate but who pronounces Dwaipayan with a strong 'v'? It just doesn't sound right. The silent 'a' might be more correct in terms of scholarship, but what's the problem with spelling something how it should be spoken (within common sense limits)? I'd also disagree that the scholarly usage is to use 'v' in all cases, and can provide examples if required. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The v/w distinction and the silent 'a' might be right for you, but neither are relevant for my mother tongue (south Indian), nor for Sanskrit. Scholarly standards are defined; they are either IAST and its predecessors for most scholarly work, or Harvard-Kyoto for ascii texts on computers. That some scholars might use other conventions is not of any real importance - each is free to invent their own convention. Imc 20:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Vyasa's Jaya[edit]

This section says at present that Sanjaya narrates Jaya (the story) to Dritarashtra. Is this so, or is this confusion of Jaya with Sanjaya's account of the battle of Kurukshetra? Imc 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Vyasa is a title[edit]

I have read somewhere but the reference eludes me right now that Vyasa is a title and not a name of a person. Just like the title King or emperor can be used for many, Vyasa can be too and that there have been 24 Vyasas so far. Perhaps that may make some of the discussion more understandable for other people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, it makes sense Vyasa means divider, so there could have been many of them and he represents the paramount idea of a rishi, one who is knowledgeable in all teachings and actually fully experiences them!Domsta333 (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Vyasa born to?[edit]

I have heard Sage Vyasa was born to a mother who belonged to the fishermen community. Could we not add this important detail about the parents of Sage Vyasa?BalanceRestored 07:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ambiguity in Vyasa birth[edit]

in vyasa's page, he is told to be born to fisher man daughter, at the same time again he is told to be born to a bramhin. fisher man and bramhin's are 2 different casts.

again in her mother's page he not mentioned under her son's list...,

please clean the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

vyasa's birth[edit]

It is said that his father Parashara perceived him from Satyavati without taking her maidenhood, adn that he transformed into a man as soon as he was born.


I moved the page to Krishna Dvaipayana Veda Vyasa, because I thought using the full name was more appropriate.

If you disagree, please comment here.

- Agnistus (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. His name is Vyasa, and this is the name that is commonly used. Veda Vyasa is an alternate name. Krishna is another name, as is Dvaipayana, these two sometimes used in combination, and not very often. The combinations of all four is not 'the full name' - unless you can show that his mother named him that. There is no policy that sanctions this move, and there was no discussion of it. It should be moved back. Imc (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC) (edited)
I suggest that the article be moved back to "Vyasa", the most popular one as in Britannica, for example.[1] --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved back to Vyasa. Imc (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


I wanted to add the following: Bhagwan Swaminarayan accepted the authority of Vyasa. In Vachanamrut Gadhadha III-10 Bhagwan Swaminarayan says, "...then please quote a verse from the scriptures of Vyasji or a verse from the Vedas to prove it. Why these two? Because there is no greater acharya than Vyasji. Others who have become acharyas and have established their sampradayas, have accepted the scriptures written by Vyasji as authoritative. Therefore, the words of Vyasji, the foremost acharya, are more authoritative than the words of all the other acharyas."

Distinction between mythological Vyasa and historial Vyasa[edit]

There is a wide overlap of the two outlooks throughout the article. It will be more readable and accurate if split into two major sections ( historial and mythical) or perhaps even two articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

My Western mind is stymied by the lack of historical facts about these great spiritual persons of the ancient past. Some contemporary Sant Mat masters have based some of their discourses on ancient Hindu sages. This helps to validate the reality of Hindu tradition to present day thinkers. These topics just don't fit well into our rather Eurocentric view of ourselves and the universe. Part of the problem might be because of the fundamental difference between orally transmitted knowledge and "written facts", but I believe the real problem is that, as an entire culture, our minds have not been sufficiently exposed to spiritual traditions. (I'm bordering on Cosmology here, a separate Wikipedia article.) If we separate out "mythology" we might miss something that our Western Eurocentric minds regard as myth, but is actually of spiritual/religious significance. By keeping them together we maintain a more dynamic platform in which people are exposed to a wider variety of well-thought-out possibilities.LFlagg (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Vyasa Reference for time period - Legacy of the Elder Gods[edit]

The use of "Legacy of the Elder Gods" by M. Don Schorn is not a viable reference. The author is a former mechanical engineer that believes that humanity was placed here by two extraterrestrial species and has written the aforementioned book about it. It is not a useable reference to cite an author who is in the absolute best case, not even mentioned or considered by academia to have any validity and in the worst case, borders on mental fragility... It is his personal theory about how humanity was seeded on Earth. The theory is not imaginative, it is irresponsible. Its citation does not belong in an encyclopaedia... Its citation as an authority for the origin and timeframe of Vyasa has even less validity... I am posting this before I remove use of the reference Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Stevenmitchell: Oh, good grief. Well done, sir. --Thnidu (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


The lede says

There are two different views regarding his birthplace. One of the views suggests that he was born in the Tanahun district in western Nepal.

What's the other view? It isn't mentioned. --Thnidu (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Definition of Vyasa[edit]

Vyasa is always defined in encyclopedias as the author of the Mahabharata [2], [3], [4], [5]. The theory of multiple "Vyasa"s (which is found in Vishnu Purana, and already noted in the article) needs to be noted, but not in the lead sentence.--Redtigerxyz Talk 09:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Vyasa is a " title given to a particular sage" in every yuga cycle.The name of the sage who currently hold this "Vyasa" titles is Krishna Dvaipayana. So he is called Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa or simply Vyasa.He is the author if Mahabaratha and numerous other texts. But the title "Vyasa" does not exclusively belong to Krishna Dvaipayana. It earlier belonged to many other Sages and transferred to other persons after a specified period of time.Just like "PRESIDENT OR PRIME MINISTER " of a country.No one can eternally hold a title.Lots of texts like Vishnu Purana ,Siva Purana,infact all puranas agrees with it.Please go through SIVA PURANA,ESPECIALLY SECTION/PART 3 ,CHAPTER 3


"CHAPTER THREE VEDA VYASA AND SIGNIFICANCE OF BRAHMAGYAN Maitreya says- "O Lord! How did God divide Vedas in the form of Veda Vyasa during different yugas?" Parashar says- During each Dwapar Yuga, in every Kalpa, Lord Vishnu takes incarnation as Veda Vyasa and effects the division of Vedas for the benefit of human beings. During every Dwapar Yuga of the present Vaivasvat Manvantara, different Vyasas have divided the Vedas twenty-eight times. During the first Dwapar, Brahma himself had divided the Vedas. During the second Dwapar, Prajapati was Veda Vyasa. During the third Dwapar, Shukracharya was Veda Vyasa. During fourth Dwapar, Brihaspati acted as Veda Vyasa. Description of other sages who acted as Veda Vyasa during the subsequent Dwapars is as follows- Surya- fifth Veda Vyasa; Mrityu- sixth Veda Vyasa, Indra- seventh Veda Vyasa, Vashishta- eighth Veda Vyasa, Saraswat- ninth Veda Vyasa, Tridhama- tenth Veda Vyasa, Trishikh- eleventh Veda Vyasa, Bharadwaj- twelfth Veda Vyasa, Antariksh- thirteenth Veda Vyasa, Varani- fourteenth Veda Vyasa. Names of next fourteen Veda Vyasas are as follows- Trayyarun, Dhananjay, Krutunjay, Jay, Bharadwaj, Gautam, Haryatma, Vajshrava, Trinbindhu, Riksh (Valmiki), Shakti, Parashar, Jatukarn and Krishnadwaipayan. After Krishnadwaipayan, Drona's son, Ashwatthama will be the next Veda Vyasa."

So i am going to revert the edits you made to back to the original state.I believe you noticed i added Krishna Dvaipayana in many places to indicate the life and contributions of current Vyasa title holder.i.e Krishna Dvaipayana VyasaArjunkrishna90 (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Arjunkrishna90, please quote WP:SECONDARY references which define Vyasa as "is the title given to the sage or Rishi who divides the Hindu holy scripture Vedas in every Dvapara Yuga of every Yuga cycle". Majority of WP:RS encyclopedias (see in my first comment) define him as author of Mahabharata: Krishna Dwaipayana. The quoted text is from Vishnu Purana again, not Shiva Purana. "Lots of texts like Vishnu Purana ,Siva Purana,infact all puranas agrees with it": highly questionable generalization based on one Purana.Redtigerxyz Talk 12:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Vyasa as "is the title given to the sage or Rishi who divides the Hindu holy scripture Vedas ″in every Dvapara Yuga of every Yuga cycle". That is what i am talking,there were many VYASAS .Its just simply a title given to a person. Current Vayasa title holder is Krishna Dwaipayana ,The author of MAHABRATHA. BUT THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE NAMED VYASA CANNOT SOLELY ONLY MENTION ABOUT Krishna Dwaipayana vyasa. The page Vyasa is meant for all Vyasa title holders. If need more clarity we have to start a new page on Wikipedia saying Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa or indicate Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa a- as i have done in the Vyasa page for mentioning current Vyasa

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Arjunkrishna90, You are requested to provide reliable references to back that Vyasa is defined primarily as "the title given to the sage or Rishi who divides the Hindu holy scripture Vedas in every Dvapara Yuga of every Yuga cycle" (which is IMO a WP:FRINGE in one source Vishnu Purana); rather than an individual who is "the author of the Mahabharata, as well as a character in it ... the scribe of both the Vedas and Puranas." --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ofcourse, i will provide references to prove that vyasa is "a title given to the sage or Rishi who divides the Hindu holy scripture Vedas in every Dvapara Yuga of every Yuga cycle" rather than an individual who is "the author of the Mahabharata, as well as a character in it ... the scribe of both the Vedas and Puranas."

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Then don't change the article until you can provide the citation. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


1.Vishnu Purana (Book 3, Ch 3) says:

"In every third world age (Dvapara), Vishnu, in the person of Vyasa, in order to promote the good of mankind, divides the Veda, which is properly but one, into many portions. Observing the limited perseverance, energy, and application of mortals, he makes the Veda fourfold, to adapt it to their capacities; and the bodily form which he assumes, in order to effect that classification, is known by the name of Veda-vyasa. Of the different Vyasas in the present Manvantara and the branches which they have taught, you shall have an account. Twenty-eight times have the Vedas been arranged by the great Rishis in the Vaivasvata Manvantara... and consequently eight and twenty Vyasas have passed away; by whom, in the respective periods, the Veda has been divided into four. The first... distribution was made by Svayambhu (Brahma) himself; in the second, the arranger of the Veda (Vyasa) was Prajapati... (and so on up to twenty-eight)."

2.SIVA Purana says:


During the 'Varaha' Kalpa of the Seventh 'Manvantar' lord Vishnu illuminated all the three world by his divine presence. This seventh Manvantara consisted of four yugas which repeated themselves in a cyclic way for twelve times.

− The first dwapar of this seventh manvantar saw the manifestation of lord Shiva for the welfare of the brahmins. When Kali Yuga arrived Lord Shiva again manifested himself along with goddess Shakti and was known as Mahamuni Shweta. Lord Brahma had the priviledge of becoming his disciple.

− During the second dwapar, sage Vyasa existed as Satya, Prajapati and Lord Shiva became famous as 'Sutar'. Lord Shiva in his incarnation of Sutra had many disciples among whom 'Dundubhi' was very famous.

− During the third dwapar sage Vyasa took his incarnation as Bhargava and lord Shiva became famous as Daman. Lord Shiva in his incarnation as Daman had four disciples among whom Vishoka was very famous. When Kali Yuga arrived after this third dwapar. Lord Shiva along with his Disciples helped Sage Vyasa.

− During the fourth Dwapar Sage Vyasa took his incarnation as Angira and Lord Shiva as 'Suhotra'. Even in this incarnation Lord Shiva had four disciples among whom Sumukh was very famous. Lord Shiva along with his disciples helped Angira.

− During the fifth dwapar sage Vyasa took incarnation as Savita and Lord Shiva as 'Kanka' who was very famous for his tremendous austerities. Kanka had four disciples among whom Sanak was very famous.

− During the sixth dwapar sage Vyasa took incarnation as Mrityu and Lord Shiva as 'Lokakshi'. Lokakshi had four disciples among whom Sudhama was very prominent.

− During the seventh dwapar sage Vyasa manifested himself as Indra and Lord Shiva as Jaigisatya. Jaigisatya had four disciples among whom Saraswat was very prominent.

− During the eighth dwapar sage Vyasa took incarnation as Vashishtha and Lord Shiva as Dadhivahan. Dadhivahan had four disciples among whom Kapila was very famous.

− During the nineth dwapar sage Vyasa took incarnation as Saraswat and Lord Shiva as 'Rishabh'. Lord Shiva in his incarnation as Rishabhdeva had four disciples among whom Parashar was very famous.


− − Veda Vyasa

− In every Dvapara Yuga, a Veda Vyasa is born so as to divide the Vedas and disseminate their knowledge. In the present era, there have been twenty-eight Dvapara Yugas and there have therefore been twenty-eight individuals who have held the title of Veda Vyasa. The Kurma Purana gives their names as follows.

− (1) Svayambhuva Manu. (2) Prajapati. (3) Ushana. (4) Brihaspati. (5) Savita. (6) Mrityu. (7) Indra. (8) Vashishtha. (9) Sarasvata. (10) Tridhama. (11) Rishabha. (12) Suteja. (13) Dharma. (14) Sachakshu. (15) Trayaruni. (16) Dhananjaya. (17) Kritanjaya. (18) Ritanjaya. (19) Bharadvaja. (20) Goutama. (21) Vachashrava. (22) Narayana. (23) Trinavindu. (24) Valmiki. (25) Shaktri. (26) Parashara. (27) Jatukarna. (28) Krishna Dvaipayana.

− Krishna Dvaipayana Veda Vyasa divided the Vedas into four parts and taught them to four of his disciples. He taught Paila the Rig Veda. Vaishampayana the Yajur Veda, Jaimini the Sama Veda and Sumantu the Atharva Veda. As for the Puranas, they were taught to Lomaharshana.


Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


<H. H. Wilson. The Vishnu Purana: A System of Hindu Mythology and Tradition (Translated from the Original Sanskrit),Hardcover – 31 Dec 2010,Sri Satguru Publications,ISBN: 8170309166

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Arjunkrishna90, these are WP:PRIMARY translations. Can you please quote from reliable WP:SECONDARY books, encyclopedias or other references where Vyasa is defined as a title.Redtigerxyz Talk 13:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)



J.L Shastri. The Vishnu Purana: A System of Hindu Mythology and Tradition (Translated from the Original Sanskrit),Hardcover – 31 Dec 2010,Sri Satguru Publications,ISBN: 8170309166


J.L Shastri. The Siva Purana Full Volume ,HARDBACK Edition 2008,Motilal Banarsidass Publication ,ISBN-13: 9788120803398 ISBN: 8120803396


Shanti Lal Nagar, Kurma Purana (Sanskrit Text with English Translation),Hardcover (Edition:2011),Parimal Publications,ISBN 9788171103263 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunkrishna90 (talkcontribs) 13:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia article and as such it deals with the primary use and understanding of the name or term 'Vyasa', which is of Vyasa of the Mahabharata. While the Vishnu Purana may be important, it is of far lower notability than the Mahabharata. Hence, the information you want to add about the title 'Vyasa' may be mentioned, but as Redtigerxyz has pointed out, belongs as a side note in the article. You may want to start a new article for your information called, say, 'Vyasa (title)'. Imc (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Second what Imc said.
This article is clearly about Vyasa the author of Mahabharata (etc), and not about the concept of "Vyasa" as per the Vishnu Purana (which is far, far less notable). Also, the issue is not about whether a secondary source can be found attesting to Vishnu Purana's concept of Vyasa, but of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which per usage is unarguable Vyasa the author of Mahabharata. So finding a few secondary sources is important so far as establishing notability and creating an Vyasa (title) article is concerned, but would not impact the subject or lede of this article. Abecedare (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The current article named "Vyasa" in Wikipedia at present only indicate about "an individual or a person" who wrote Mahabharata.Mahabharata & several other texts is written by a person who holds the "vyasa position" & he is called "Krishna Dvaipayana or Kishna Dvypaaina Vyasa".People out of ignorance just call him Vyasa . So to indicate the author of Mahabratha we have to start a new page "Krishna Dvyapaina Vyasa " or make necessary changes in the current article titled Vyasa.

In simple terms to include the entire concept of Vyasa in a single page i.e in the present page give a small indication that "Vyasa - is a position given to an individual for a limited period of time" and the person who currently holds this position is Krishna Dvypaina. So to indicate the author of Mahabratha we have to mention "HIM" every time as Krishna Dvypaina Vyasa not simply Vyasa bcoz it causes confusion to people who knows about truth!!.

I have made edits on the Vyasa wikipedia page to indicate it.But the user "Redtigerxyz" undid edits i made solely based on his individual concepts or ideas.Why cant anyone go through the edits and see or think about it for a few seconds.People who have absolutely no idea about Hinduism claims that Vyasa is just a single person."But in actual its just a position given to an individual for a limited period of time". All the references support my claims!!!!.I believe few editors are trying to make people fools by giving false information and supporting it. Is it Wikipedia stands for??. If somebody wants to understand please go through the edits i made so that you may understand it better

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel stupid and this entire discussion feels hilarious because,I found out in "THIS TALK PAGE" itself DIFFERENT TIMES IN 2006,2007,2008 different users mentioned that ""Vyasa is just a title given to people for a time period"" and ""the author of Mahabratha should be called Krishna Dvypaina Vyasa"".If you want to see it look above in this TALK page ,sub titled"About his name 'veda vyaasa' in 2006 ", "Vyasa is a title in 2007 ", "Move 2008" .I still wonder why is this wrong mistakes still in this page even though over the years many users pointed out??????

I saw that the users Redtigerxyz & Imc in 2008 commenting on this issue .So question to Redtigerxyz & Imc - Are you guys wrong??? This is the question you should ask yourself because over the years multiple users pointed out mistakes and you still dont rectify the mistakes.



In the present title Vyasa page on wikipedia, make a sentence that Vyasa is just a " position" and denote every time " Krishna Dvypaina Vyasa " when talking about the author of Mahabharata.

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You should propose your change, if you actually believe that it has been pointed by many other users. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If its okay for all the party's involved in this discussion,then i will make necessary changes to the page.Please observe it after i made necessary changes and comment to make any changes.Thanks

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Arjun, as has been explained by Redtigerxyz, Imc and me, the current article title and lede is correct as per wikipedia policies. Let me try to summarize the reasons one last time:
  • The author of MBh (etc) is known by various names/titles: Krishna Dvaipayana, Vyasa, and Ved Vyasa. However amongst these, Vyasa is the most common name used by both primary and secondary sources. Hence the article is correctly titled Vyasa (rather than Krishna Dvaipayana or Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa), with the lede mentioning the other names/titles.
  • The word Vyasa has several meanings in Sanskrit along the lines of distribution; compiler etc. However the only (or, at least primary) encyclopedic subject for the term corresponds to the author of MbH. Now, the Vishnu Purana's concept of multiple persons accorded the title Vyasa can be briefly mentioned in the article, and if multiple secondary sources are found on that topic, a separate article Vyasa (title) can be created. However the subject of this article (and hence its lede sentence) should remain Vyasa, the author of Mbh.
Hope that makes it clear. If you still disagree, feel free to follow any of the dispute resolution processes. However do not reinstate your changes to the article lede etc unless you have established consensus for those changes. Abecedare (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Changing Vyasa page name to Krishna Dvaipāyana Vyasa[edit]

As discussed on this TALK page and Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard , i have created a new page Vyasa_(title).But feel that the existing page Vyasa should be renamed to " Krishna Dvaipāyana Vyasa ", in order to mention about the author of Mahabharata and his contribution.The new page Vyasa_(title) should be the general platform for indicating all Vyasas ever existed . Also i want to include in the Vyasa page that "Vyasa is just a "position for a brief period of time given to an individual"

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)