Talk:Khandoba

Cleanup

Could somebody please break the last section of the page into sub paragraphs, as it is very unwieldy,possibly using sub headings. I don't have the knowledge of the text do it properly.

perfectblue 14:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Vishal1976

The version i have created is a summary of your information. The information you had provided was in a hap hazard state. Thus to meet the wikipedia standards, i have put the info in proper English. Thatz all. I respect your sentiments for God Khandoba. Please let this version remain.

Please stop stop 'Tamil' Venu vs 'Maratha' Vishal war.

God bless. Khandoba cha chag bhal!

--Redtigerxyz 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Grate. Thanks. But the destruction and infame done by Venu62 is very bad. -- Vishal1976

Dear Vishal,

Reply 2 ur "Human's canot(cannot) edite(edit) god's secred(sacred) , holy text. you can only translate." Wikipedia is not the place to translate 'god's holy text'. If the articles - on gita or Puranas or RAMAyana or Mahabharat was put translated then the article would be 1000s, maybe crores of pages!!!!!!! Same Implies to Malhari Mahatmya.

WhY don't you start a site instead where ur valuable input to this article is put? U know articles have some Kb limits.

God bless. Khandoba cha chag bhal!--Redtigerxyz 15:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

yess. i have already this in my mind. But what about the vandalism committed by Venu62 and Meltitas etc. They gotta me banned and kidnapped my article Maratha clan system. You can gess that waht business these vandalist got to do whith these article except vandalism ?? They haven't put a single good , informative word to this articles but deliting good information. If the havent been to Jejuri or god Khandoba's temple , then what right they got to edite here. As they do not belong to Maratha caste , then one can get ther malicious , vwnoms intention to vandalise this articles. I have been to god Khandoba's temple several times and read , gathered information about Maratha caste in good , pious intention.And about your said objection that each articles have KB limits , but if Wikipedia autorities have no objection then why are you bothered ?? Those who hate god Khandoba , Maratha pepole and are non beliver do not have any right to edite here. Did i ever vandalise Tamil articles befoure this war started ?? Kee these in mind and consider my lawfuul rights .--- Vishal1976 -- Vishal Prakash Duhane

Wouldn't u be scared to read a 100 line para?--Redtigerxyz 10:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you do the same with the Jyotiba article Mr Redtigerxyz

I Vishal1976 hade transalated good information about god Jyotiba, but vandalist Venu62 and MelTitis vandalised that article and repetadely kidnnapeed the article without any justification . Can you put the short information about my post AS Shree Kedar Vijay Mr Redtigerxyz. You know that these vandalist have blocked me and they both are sock puppeters.

History at Jyotiba article :- 10:28, 20 March 2007 61.17.205.115

Names Of Wives

This is regarding the way the wives of Khandoba are addressed in the article. My suggestion would be to use Devi at start or end of the name. e.g Devi Mhalsa or Mhalsadevi. The current usage is improper and i strongly feel it should be changed. If anyone has any other suggestion please feel free discuss it. If none respond to this suggestion from me, i shall be changing the names to what i have suggested, say in a day or two. (Asro 09:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

The devi term is not known to those who are not familar with Hinduism.--Redtigerxyz 05:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Vishal1976

The current edition of article god kandoba is vicious and defaming the god. It should be altered and those who are responsible should be punish in the court of law. In this article the god khandoba is potrated as sexy man, lusty for womens, marrying outcaste girls. If you see all the caste mention in this articles , even today they don't intermarry, marry outcaste. The meaning, tone of this article sounds very loudly to defame, insult the god Khandoba and Maratha caste and spread missleading information about god Khandoba in all world. Dose Wikipedia allows this vandalism ??? I Vishal Prakash Dudhane, User Vishal1976 have personaly visited both forts god Khandoba and did the ritual like Abhishek , Tali Bhandar etc many time in pious intention. I have talked the peoples, priests. Many of my Maratha relatives and other friends lives ther in Jejuri will certainly will not agree with current edition of this article. I expect argent, quick legal, ethical, moral actions against the vandalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.140.159 (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vishal1976, maybe the idea of marrying "outcaste" girls is wrong in your view but maybe not in the view of Lord Khandoba or those who wrote His stories. Please provide concrete references as per WP:VERIFY policy to rebuke the matter in the article. Just for references, Hindu gods are known to linked to more than 1 consorts in religious texts like Puranas. e.g. Krishna - 16008 queens, Vishnu - 2 consorts (Lakshmi and Bhudevi), Ganesha - Riddhi and Siddhi etc.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I bet you Redtigerxyz are not from Brahmin caste. Instead of asking refernce from those writers whose genetics, ansestory, genpool have no refrence, you should find the reasone why Brahmin caste are not allowed to enter the Khandoba temple of Jejuri and Bhavani temple of Tuljapur. This will throw a sunlight in your vicious innermind that you are carring and vandalisin all Maratha gods related article. Anyway you Brahmin are so poor, triffle to me that i even can't remember the splee of Brahmin word.-- Vishal1976 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.252.172 (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not have any personal attacks or vandalism, Vishal. Ekantik ^talk 03:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Narration

I wonder if any editor has a copy of the Malhari-mahatmya and if they could use it to fill in more details about the career of Khandoba? Right now the section is way too small and may look better if it is combined with the 'wives' section. I appreciate that Khandoba is generally not very well known as other divinities. Ekantik ^talk 03:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:MOS, the list of temples would look much better further down the article after the 'worship' section. It isn't appropriate to begin an article with a list of temples rather than give information about Khandoba himself. What do other editors think?

P.S. I will data-mine some academic references about Khandoba when I get the time. Ekantik ^talk 03:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Khandoba/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead should be a summary of the entire article. Therefore, there should be information in the lead that is not in the body of the article and so there is no need for references in the lead unless you are backing up a direct quotation.
   • In the second paragraph of the Legends section, you say " The demon was slaughtered by the gods and finally Khandoba killed the two demons." Can you clarify this, please? Which demon was slaughtered by the gods? I thought the only demons that the story was talking about were the two that Khandoba killed...

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • My main issue with this article is with the reference formatting consistency, just as it was with the Putana article. Book references need to be consistently in the split ref format, if that is the one you choose to use; full refs should be organized by author, and I suggest that you use the cite book template; and links should be made through the title of the work, rather than being a bare ref.
   • There are a few spots that need references:

   • The last sentence of the Etymology section.
   • The last bit of the Iconography section.
   • The last sentence of the Wives section
   • The last sentence of the Other associations section.
   • Most of the Twelve temples section.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

reworded the legends sentence.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There are refs in the lead as things like "He is the most popular family deity in Maharashtra" need not be repeated again.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed the list, retained some of them, which are named elsewhere in the article with references.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and struck the items that you've completed. The things that I see as still needed for GA status are the ref formatting and the referencing of the remainder of the temples section. Dana boomer (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

References are available for these temples elsewhere in the article, so their existence can not be questioned and only statements can be challenged need a ref. Will work on citation, sorry forgot that. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The part in the temples section that I'm most concerned about is the description of the Jejuri temple, especially where you start talking about the belief that this is where Khandoba first appeared on earth. This probably needs a citation, if you have one close at hand. Dana boomer (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sentence removed, ref added. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks great, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To my mind Khandoba is another god in the Hindu pantheon like Kali, Ganesh or Vitthal or Balaji. People worshipping on of these gods don't normally have a problem also worshipping the other gods and so calling those worshipping Khandoba as belonging to his cult or sect may not be appropriate. The whole Khandoba article cites references from just one book, just one book ! Makes one wonder how it was ever given a good article status ! 74.9.96.122 (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Worship section

Copy-paste from my talk page: --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding the words nominal or few in front of Brahmin on the worship section. The colonial era gazetteer or documents based on that make abundantly clear that Khandoba was worshiped by deshastha. You correctly say, Deshastha have Khandoba as their kuldaiwat. The List of Deshastha Brahmin surnames have either Khandoba or Balaji as the male kuldaiwat with Khandoba being more common. At my deshastha grandfather's house, they used to have a 6 day Khandoba che Ghat (घट) in Margashirsha month. Given this, why are you so reluctant to add that deshastha worship Khandoba in the first sentence. Is it because you don't like brahmins being associated with so called low castes ? I know kokanastha don't worship Khandoba but practically all other Marathi castes do! Perhaps, this denotes the comparatively recent arrival of kokanstha to Maharashtra. However, that doesn't explain the adoption by a large number of kokanastha of Yogeshwari of Ambejogai as their kuldaiwat though!74.9.96.122 (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The references (Sontheimer in Hiltebeitel and Stanley in Hiltebeitel - I do not have the books right now so cant give the exact quotes) stress on the nominal Brahmin presence and influence in the Khandoba cult and only a few Brahmin communities like the Deshasthas worship him. The references says add that other Brahmin communities hate the Khandoba cult to the extent that they vilified Khandoba and considered his temples as impure. The first sentence talks about the "cult" of Khandoba, while the other about the "kuldevata" status., which are two different concepts. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent change to Khandoba [1] (edit summary: correct as per Stanley in Hiltebeitel ref. deshastha have him as Kuldevate is noted further) does not provide the citation you claim, i.e, there is no Hiltebeitel in ref section. Can you please provide a fix and correct attribution for quick cross-checking. Also, it looks like a personal POV is being pushed, much similar to the one in Marathi dispute [2]. I would ask that such POV pushing be curtailed. Apologies, if this is not so. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making allegations of POV pushing on two articles together. As per wikipedia coventions: Stanley in Hiltebeitel denotes: Stanley, John. M. (1989). "The Captulation of Mani: A Conversion Myth in the Cult of Khandoba". in Alf Hiltebeitel. Criminal Gods and Demon Devotees: Essays on the Guardians of Popular Hinduism. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could act on it then, especially since the relevant and neutral fringe notice board has thrown out your allegation[3] and all of the other allegations by other editors who share your POV have been adequately refuted.[4] Zuggernaut (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I will contest the view that the counter-views have been adequately refuted. I will wait for a third party to comment. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, you can contest the other allegations if you like. But you alleged WP:Fringe and took the content to the fringe notice board which rejected it.[5] All that's left now is your caste-based POV against my content. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz, How does having Khandoba as Kuldaiwat ( family deity) doesn't equate to worship ?74.9.96.122 (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Kuladevata worship is different from the cultic worship, which is almost void of Brahmin presence. Stanley in Hiltebeitel, refers to the Khandoba cult to be largely non-Brahmin cult. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz The whole paragraph on Khandoba worship needs rewording to differentiate between cult worship and what it involves from benign worship by brahmin communities. I don't know what brahmin community you belong to but the The gazetteer's report for Satara says that Kokanastha worship him too. If by "cult" worship you mean blood sacrifice , sexual depravity etc. then that should be explicitly stated. When so many deshastha and upper caste Marathas have him as their kuldevata then , these families would have Khandoba's image in their household shrine (Deeoghar in Marathi) and the family will visit Jejuri or Pali after a wedding , munj etc. So the word few or nominal before brahmins may not be right when mentioning communities following Khandoba, unless you also explicitly state that "worship" applies to the more "exotic" cult worship of Khandoba.24.187.26.104 (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please link to the The gazetteer's report for Satara, so I can read it and mend the article. The article talks about cultic practices like animal sacrifice, self - torture, Possession by Khandoba and uses the word "cult" explicitly in them. There is difference between worshipping Khandoba and being part of his cult, a similar case is applicable to Vithoba worship: many Marathi people worship Vithoba, but not all are part of his cult - the Varkari sect. Also about "few Brahmin", as I said earlier, the references (see above) stress on absence (nominal presence) of Brahmins in the cult. Stanley defines the Khandoba cult as a "non-Brahman" cult.

WE can together rework the whole section, if needed. Please provide references that would facilitate the reworking. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Redtiger, Here are multiple references stating that brahmans worship Khandoba. the last one is from Satara talking about Kokanastha and Khandoba. I would say relying on just one reference, Criminal God.... etc. may not be a good idea for wikipedia. My maternal grandparents, who were yajurvedi deshastha had a metal khandoba on a horseback in their deoghar. Just like Navratri for Devi with "ghat basale" they used to have six days of ghat in Margashirsh with champasashthi as the last day of the festival. The various gazetteers reports also talk about worship by other so called lower castes which you may want to incorporate in the wikipedia article. Below are mostly articles talking about brahmin worship only [6],[7],[8],[9] 24.187.26.104 (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Good references, all of which must be included in the article. Though I am currently busy, I would not be able to do it immediately. You presented arguments on basis on reliable sources, a key principle of wikipedia. Constructive Editors like you are needed by wikipedia. I would urge you to adopt a username and start the reworking of Khandoba article. I will join you soon. About the references, all of them asserts that Khandoba is worshipped as kuladevata by many, including Brahmins, however Criminal God... does not deny Brahmin worship, however it only stresses on absence (nominal presence) of Brahmins in the cult. The references, you provided, do not say that Brahmins are part of the cult. Please read my analogy of Vithoba-worship and Varkari sect. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The words sect, cult may have differing connotations, sometimes negative. If there's a Marathi word/phrase available, we should stick to using that such as in Varkari Sampraday for Vithobas followers. Perhaps there's something similar for Khandoba's followers as well. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As per wiki-policy and general academic usage, both these terms are in wide spread in academic literature relating to religion. WP:JARGON like Varkari Sampraday are confusing to the general non-Hindu, non-Indian reader of wikipedia. So even a Varkari Sampraday has to defined as a sect, as done by scholars. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Tiger had a glimpse at your Khandoba debate, I was uncomfortable with the use of cult in Vithoba and ditto for Khandoba, cult in theological discussions does have a neutral connotation, but in common English (the language wikipedia is written in) cult conjures images of Om shin rikyo Perhaps sect would be more appropriate.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Section break

1. Red, the Khandoba article will be read by lay people, I have written above, that cult is technically neutral, but to a lay man it sounds sinister. It is like using the word oversight in India, where it means to overlook, whereas in the US it means to supervise, for if you use oversight in India and show its dictionary meaning that it also means to supervise it would be of no help if ones intention is to communicate and not to confuse or to show off or to show fidelity to general academic usage (read overrated western stuffed shirts) and not to get the idea across effectively. We have had this argument before. It is a pity it is difficult to get the thought across Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Indian Hindu writers like Manohar Laxman Varadpande, Swami P. Anand, Swami Parmeshwaranand, Ghurye use "cult" in the context of Khandoba. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no argument whether the use of cult is right or wrong, the point is that it is a little too academic, archaic and that its present usage in lay parlance is very pejorative. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. the word sect would be more appropriate or even "panth". 74.9.96.122 (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I take my words back from the previous post. To my mind Khandoba is another god in the Hindu pantheon like Kali, Ganesh or Vitthal or Balaji. People worshipping one of these gods don't normally have a problem also worshipping the other gods and so calling those worshipping Khandoba as belonging to his cult or sect may not be appropriate. The whole Khandoba article cites references from just one book, just one book ! Makes one wonder how it was ever given a good article status ?74.9.96.122 (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check properly: it cites 12 books and three other web sources. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well you cite 60 references, out of that 54 are from Hiltebeitel's book! May be that's why the article has the "cult flavor" and not the NPOV which it should have. One of your correspondence has cited a number of references from Gazetteers. These have a more neutral tone despite being written by the British at the height of their rule in india. 74.9.96.122 (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If 54 of the 60 sources are indeed from one book then this can potentially fall under WP:ONESOURCE guideline. Separately I am requesting you to please provide the exact quotes used from Burman in 4 places from page 1227 of Burman, J. J. Roy (Apr. 14-20, 2001). "Shivaji's Myth and Maharashtra's Syncretic Traditions". Economic and Political Weekly. 36 (14/15): 1226–1234. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Well you cite 60 references, out of that 54 are from Hiltebeitel's book": Please count properly. Out of 60, 54 are NOT from Hiltebeitel's book. Also, Hiltebeitel is just the editor, not the writer of the book. There are 2 articles written by different scholars in his book, that the article cites. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is OK with the anon 74.9.96.122 and Zuggernaut, I suggest copy pasting this discussion to Talk:Khandoba. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am OK to move this discussion to Talk:Khandoba Zuggernaut (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Burman p. 1227:"Sakama Bhakti is considered to be of a lower esteem and the lower caste people are considered to follow it. The worship of Khandoba cult is considered to be a part of Sakama Bhakti. Eknath, one of the most renowned Bhakti saints is also believed to have written disparagingly about the cult worship of Khandoba. ... In some places Khandoba is called Mallu Khan or Amjat Khan - the latter said to be a name given to Khandoba by Aurangzeb, who was compelled to flee from Khandoba's power." --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Keeping in mind WP:SPIRIT and WP:Goodfaith, I am not going to dispute this source any further other than stating that we need to read/provide entire relevant sections/paragraphs of cited sources. Also, you should consider replacing the word denigrate in this sentence " The Varkari poet-saint Eknath denigrated the cult in his writings.[41]" with something like 'criticizes'. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"disparaging": Regard or represent as being of little worth; which is captured in the word "denigrate" and not in "criticize". However, I have replaced it to criticize, till the dispute is resolved. All relevant paras are copy-pasted here. Burman writes about religious traditions in Shivaji's era; Khandoba cult being one of them. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted my edit to "denigrated" again as above. No oppositions to my above comment. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's best to use "disparagingly" as it is then. Denigrate has a connotation that actually makes Eknath look un-saintly. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Although IMO disparagingly and denigrated (To disparage; belittle) [10] have the same connotation. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sakama bhakti and hierarchy of caste

Where did Burman discover that Sakam bhakti has a lower esteem because it is connected with people of so called lower castes? Sakama Bhakti is for the householder, nishkam bhakti is for those who have renounced the world. Sakama is translated by Sri La Bhakti Vedanta Prabhupada as frutive activities and Nishkam as pure devotion.

In Bhagwatgita 7.16 Shri Krishna describes the four types of Bhaktas;

chatur-vidha bhajante mam janah sukritinorjuna arto jijnasur artharthi dnyani cha bharatarsabha (7.16)

Arjuna (the best of the Bharats) four types of pious persons render devotional service to me, the distressed, the seeker of knowledge, the desirers of wealth, and men of wisdom.

Srila Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada comments

“ Adherents of the regulative principles of the scriptures, and they are called sukritinah, or those who obey the rules and regulations of scriptures, the moral and social laws, and are, more or less, devoted to the Supreme Lord. Out of these there are four classes of men—those who are sometimes distressed, those who are in need of money, those who are sometimes inquisitive, and those who are sometimes searching after knowledge of the Absolute Truth. These persons come to the Supreme Lord for devotional service under different conditions. These are not pure devotees, because they have some aspiration to fulfill in exchange for devotional service. Pure devotional service is without aspiration and without desire for material profit ”

Shri Vishvanath Chakravarti Thakur comments

“ Four types worship me. Those who follow the rules of varnasrama (sukrtinah), worship me. Among them some desire relief from affliction, from calamities like sickness; some desire knowledge of atma or desire knowledge of scriptures with grammar; and some desire enjoyment in this life and the next with land, elephants, horses, women, gold and other such things. These worship me. These three are sakama grhasthas. The fourth type, the dnyani, a sannyasi with pure heart, is niskama. ”

Shridhar Swami comments:

“ Sridhara Swami's Commentary

Only those who are virtuous and righteous have the qualification for devotion to the Supreme Lord. There are four categories of such qualified beings according to differences in their virtue. Those who performed virtuous deeds in previous lives worship Lord Krishna and fall into four categories: 1) artto are those distressed such as persecuted by disease. If they performed virtuous activities in past lives then they will have the opportunity to worship Lord Krishna otherwise they will be limited to worshipping minor gods and formless illusionary gods. 2) atharthi are the seekers of wealth who desire to have full facility for enjoyment in this life and their next. If they performed virtuous deeds in their past lives then they too will have the opportunity to worship Lord Krishna. 3) jijnasuh are those who desire self realisation to end the cycle of birth and death. If they performed virtuous actions in their past lives they will also have the opportunity to worship Lord Krishna. 4) dnyanis are those who have achieved atma tattva or realisation of the soul and know the Supreme Lord. If they have performed virtuous activities in their past lives then they will have the opportunity of advancing further and worshipping Lord Krishna.

It should be understood that aspirants in all four categories will be forced to experience endless reincarnation until one finally evolves to attainment of devotion to Lord Krishna.

”

On what basis can Burman suggest that whether a bhakti is Sakam or Nishkam bhakti is related with caste and ritual? He is painting a grossly distorted picture of Hindu philosophy against what Hindu dnyanis have explained as quoted above. So Burman's views are either sheer nonsense or at best wp:fringe. Burman ibid starts with (not verbatim) "Shivaji may have been a great warrior". So who according to him can be considered unqualified great? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please we should keep stuffed noses and their stooges away from the sources we refer. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sakama bhakti is always considered lower than Nishkam bhakti [11]. Burman is not relating caste and bhakti IMO, but stating that 2 different facts 1. is considered to be of a lower esteem, which is undisputed. 2. "the lower caste people" are considered to follow it. I am removing the disputed "the lower caste people are considered to follow it" as it may reflect only Burman's POV. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, acc. to sources as demonstrated by me, such as Bhagawan Krishna in the Gita as mentioned by Sri La Bhaktivedanta Prabhupad,(so I am not refering to a primary source) (and not stuffed noses or their fawning stooges), Nishkam is higher than Sakam, the Bhagawan says so, see Gita 7.16 that I have quoted above. Burman's association with caste is either sheer nonsense or his fringe view. Please be careful while choosing sources. We have had one thousand years of attempts to malign our culture, we should reverse that trend of-course within the boundries of wikipedia rules. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I would not have associated the Gita's interpretation of Bhakti with Khandoba's sakama bhakti. That would be a WP:SYN. However, as Burman says explicitly that Sakama bhakti associated with Khandoba's cult is considered lower; it is there in the article. You are right about "the lower caste people" comment, it could be a WP:FRINGE, but IMO should be included in the article if proved otherwise.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me. We are trying to understand the meaning of Sakam and Niskam bhakti fundamentally. Do you mean that Sakam/ Niskam are deity specific? Khandoba has one set of rules and Mhasoba another and Mariaii another, Ram one, Krishna another and Shiva his own? Where is the synthesis? Throwing these braces {{}} without rhyme or reason at editors is breach of another {{}}, I do not remember which. I am not quoting the Gita. I have a good source explaining what Bhagwan Shri Krishna’s definitions of Sakam and Niskam were. Do you have a better source? Or is it some Durban-Turban against Sri La Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad/ Bhagwan Shri Krishna. What is your point? Turban-Durban writes that Shivaji was perhaps a great warrior, who was unambiguously great according to him his grand-father, there may be other such ridiculous stuff masquerading as scholarship, but unfortunately it is not available in public domain, and so cannot be exposed. (I’ll get back about this, regarding the accessibility of quoted sources, like another editor here has mentioned) Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica does not know where Mahabaleshwar is, but still it can be quoted because it is w***e and c***s***n. (Check it out if you want to; it is in public domain) My point is we should use our common sense and good sources. Please stay away from such perverted and prejudiced sources a la Laine, Turban-Durban is one of them. There is no argument what good sources consider superior Sakam or Niskam. Of-course it is Niskam. The Bhagwan has been quoted by a good source PERIOD Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A marauder iconoclast Hindu hater, Hindu murderer called him Mallu Khan or whatever so that becomes one of Khandoba’s names. Vinod Kambli is frequently called kalya taklya. There is a good source for it. Can we give it as one of his names or pet names in his wikipedia article? [[12]] Please pass the commonsense, the cook forgot to add it.

I am saying all this is because you have proven record of better editing than I have. All we need is a little understanding, discretion and a holistic view. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing is you and I know that Sakama/ Niskama is NOT deity specific, but if I had quoted source A saying Sakama exists in Khandoba cult and source B (the Gita) saying Sakama is lower, then wikipedia ("If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.") would consider it SYN. About Mallu Khan, it is also included in the Mahatmyas of the Lord, which were written by Hindus. The inclusion of Muslims in Khandoba's rituals is unique. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of sync. But why did you raise the flag for me? Again statistically what percent of his devotees are Muslim One in a million?!!! Is it satistically significant. Some humans are born with two heads. Does the Voyager record show humans with two heads? I have no way to check the Mahatmyas. So I leave that ball alone. What is the reason for his syncretism exhibitionism??? A sinister campaign??!!! First they break our temples and then they defile our deities?!!!Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It was just a reply to "Please be careful while choosing sources."; the explanation why Burman is cited. About Muslim veneration and Mallu Khan, you may check Malhari Mahatmya and Martanda Vijaya. About defile comment, I disagree; the jagrut god Khandoba has accepted Muslims as devotees. Statistically, the % of Muslims is low in the cult, as noted in the article. It is significant enough that RS note it. "The cult of Khandoba consists of ... even some Muslims." --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this article suggest that Ramoshi's are ex-criminals

Does this article suggest that Ramoshi's are ex-criminals? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. They were ex-criminals. Anthropological Survey of India ref: [13], Rusell Ramoshis' traditional occupation was looting. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess other communities of India might say that the traditional occupation of all Marathi people was looting because that was one activity Shivaji and his successors used to built the Maratha empire. Anthropological surveys and other colonial era documents use disparaging terms about all castes including brahmins. I hope you get my point. So please be careful in how you use information about a particular community.74.9.96.122 (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What you say anon is WP:OR. Anthropological Survey of India is a Government of India entity. [14] --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Anon 74.9.96.122 does have a point as I discovered while writing the Third Anglo-Maratha War. Shivaji has been referred to as a freebooter by several British authors from 1800s and early 1900s. However, we cannot blame these authors or discard entire books from them as good sources because they do contain other well researched information. This information would have been lost on Indian history had the British authors not documented it. Perhaps the authors were victims of the era they lived in. On the other hand, I was stunned to find that several articles like this FA - British Empire often have a Eurocentric POV. Take a look at the changes I've made to see what I mean and feel free to scrutinize further:[15][16][17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] The ASI book has it's flaws as it often draws from the same British authors I've mentioned above. I can't say much about Ramoshi's but others such as the Pindari's of Chambal/Malwa, the Thugees of Bengal were rightly branded as criminals by the British. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Zugernaut, for a change I agree with you. I tried searching using Ramoshi +criminal and all my hits were based on British colonial era documents ( e.g. 1871 criminal tribes act ) Redtiger, Zuggernaut, we as wikipedia editors need ready references and because of copyright issues, the most easily available on the internet are from decades ago or a century ago. Unfortunately, the older ones happen to be written by europeans with views prevalent during that era. If we rely solely on these then the wikipedia article also becomes distorted. A case in point is my edit war since yesterday with Zuggernaut. I have been interested in the subject of "caste and race / genetics for nearly twenty years and have spent countless hours in the library searching for information and getting copies of articles of interest to me. ( and I am not a social scientist). I have a full copy of the Mastana et al article in annals of Human biology and my edits are faithfully based on the content of the article. However, since the article is not freely available on the web, Zuggernaut gets suspicious (perhaps natural). I have not shared the contents of that article because I just want to test the Wikipedia verifiability and ease of access policies to the fullest. Having said that, I think we should believe in Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy and not delete perfectly good edits at the first chance. Also given the times we are living in, we should also use some sensitivity in using terms such as "low castes" or ex-criminal.Shakher59 21:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakher59 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not censored. We can not deny the truth. The fact is that the Khandoba cult assimilated in it the masses and people from fringes of society, which is established by scholars by describing the social status of communities. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Redtiger, you contradict yourself ( in the Khandoba article). On one hand you say Khandoba is worshipped by communities on the fringe but then we mention deshastha brahmins and the maratha royal families as well. I think your views are blinkered by the two articles from "Criminal Gods and demon devotees" and that's why you associate Khandoba with communities on the margins of Maharashtrian society. The reality is that Khandoba more so than Vitthal is the "patron god" for all indigenous Marathi people because most castes (including deshastha brahmins) have him as their Kuldaiwat. And this is not original Research.Shakher59 13:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakher59 (talk • contribs)

Where did I say that Khandoba is NOT worshipped by them (Please do not read what is not said), I just said that (like Vithoba's Varkaris) Khandoba cult also includes the masses and people from fringes of society, which is not always the case. In some Brahmanical sects, they were not included. And yes, Khandoba is the most popular Kuladevata (family deity), the article emphasizes this fact in the lead; no OR there. I, nor the article associate Khandoba only with communities on the margins of Maharashtrian society; the article tries to establish that "The cult of Khandoba ... also assimilates all communities irrespective of caste, including Muslims." --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Redtiger, you say and i quote "Khandoba cult also includes the masses and people from fringes of society, which is not always the case." when you say not always the case, are you saying that there are Hindu gods which worshipped only by hindu religious or social elites ( brahmins, kulin Maratha ,CKP etc)? if so, please let me know who these gods are ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakher59 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"there are Hindu gods which worshipped only by hindu religious or social elites": I never said that but there are Hindu gods whose sects (it is the people whose discriminate, not the gods) kept some communities away. In the past, some communities were kept away from temples and Brahmanical worship. The Khandoba cult did not do so. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Section break

Again Red has tripped on a rhetorical question. The Ramoshi's were branded criminal, like many other peoples by the British racist, criminal colonialists. Do you mean to say Red that just because Savarkar spent years in British prison for murder (conspiracy, abetment etc.), that makes his progency murderers?

Were the British criminals any better than Marathas, Pindaris, Thugs or others? Hodson first removed the clothes of Zafar’s sons and then shot them. Why did he remove their clothes, simple! he stole their jewels, must have been worth a fortune!! Iranians, Arabs, Turks, Afghans, Moghals, Siddis are known to have destroyed tens of thousands of temples and robbed their wealth, were the Marathas, Pindaris, Thugs any worse.[[24]]. Srinagar’s only Jain temple was recently ransacked.[[25]] Getting back to ASI and the Gazettes, we have a victorious people writing the history of their contest. They stamped the Pindaris, Thugs etc as criminal, condemned them to a life of brutal oppression. The British and Europeans have not yet stopped this racism, less than 60 years ago it was the Jews, the Roma and others by the Germans, the Jews have been rehabilitated, the Roma continued to suffer racial profiling, there are Europe’s unmenschen, but we are sourcing non-sense from these muck-raisers and anointing our people and our gods with it. It is such a shame. Shaker I had once suggested that sources not on line should be extensively quoted perhaps in footnotes, for peer review. Red don’t call Ramoshi’s or anybody else criminals. Ex or otherwise. It is saying that Vinod's pet-name is Kalya Taklya, only greatly sinister. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am only writing what the WP:RS write. The ASI is a govt agency, no British Raj pressure. Please do not digress and cite WP:RS to prove that Ramoshis were not traditional not criminals. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

ASI was set up by the British, (please check). Of course Romoshi's were branded as criminal by the British, so were Jews branded by Germans as unmenshen, would you dare to refer to Jews as ex-unmenshen. If you can go ahead with Ramoshi's too I am not digressing, I am trying to explain my point giving examples Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Check this article Denotified and Nomadic Tribes in Maharashtra: Motiraj Rathod[[26]] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you refer to a black American as a Negro, even a historical personality, despite plethora of sources? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am also adding their current status as "village guards and watch-men" as ASI defines them.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Linked Denotified tribes of India. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Red I did not digress, other editors dragged Marathas, and the rest here. I simply reacted. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yelkot yelkot jai malhar

No mention of the above cry? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Mention it then. This article is just a GA, not supposed to be comprehensive. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not finding faults, just humble suggestion, Yelkot yelkot has a story about it(I am narrating an anecdote, no sources), it is about the the war that he fought against Karnataka killing yelkot or 10 (?) crore of the enemy. So this cry Yelkot yelkot jai Malhar. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please add it, if you have the sources. I don't have sources for it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, yelkot means "7 crore" and denotes the 7 crore strong army he led against Mani-Malla. Don't remember where I read it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Khandoba worship

Redtiger, as we agreed in message exchange a few days ago, we should work on getting the whole section on Khandoba worship reworded. I also included several articles from gazeteers as references to back this up. The references mainly show that all brahmin castes including deshastha and Kokanastha worshipped Khandoba. Incidently, the references are from the 1800s. Please also read [27]. I hope you notice the word cult. Shakher59 17:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakher59 (talk • contribs)

About "cult", read [28], where cult is acceptable. Please differentiate between the cultic worship, where Brahmin presence and essence is minimal and the benign Kuladevata worship performed by Brahmin communities. Even the cultic centres of Khandoba have non-Brahmin priests. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

About the word, see also Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Cult. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Gory lies

“ On fulfilment of the navas, Khandoba was offered children or the devotee would afflict pain by hook-swinging or fire-walking.[41] This type of worship is called Sakama Bhakti - worship done with an expectation of return and is considered "to be of a lower esteem".[42] ”

Navas is Sakam bhakti, how the navas is fulfilled, is secondary, why does this article smear Hindu deities and worship, by leading and false information? Does the source say that fire walking is Sakam bhakti, sheer nonsense and false information. Navas can be fulfilled by starting a school or sponsoring a scholar, or by offering 1.25 rupees, there is nothing gory about navas and Sakam bhakti fundamentally, how individuals fulfil it is as varied as there are devotees. The meaning of Sakam bhakti is given in adequate detail above, please modify this article Yogesh Khandke (talk)

The article records the navas was fulfilled by these methods. Prove by RS that Khandoba was NOT offered children, hook-swinging or fire-walking are NOT part of his cultic worship. Please provide RS that says "Navas can be fulfilled by starting a school or sponsoring a scholar, or by offering 1.25 rupees". Fire-walking is NOT Sakama bhakti; however worship using navas is. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yogesh, please go ahead (please don't wait for me) and add the other ways of fulfilling navas, with other references, Marathi RS will also work; do you have any? Actually, I trying to Marathi RS, and you are right about the donation part, that is a way to fulfil navas. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Few or Most

Redtiger, I agree your German reference says "few" but then we have references further on in the section that say that Deshastha as well as Konkanstha worship Khandoba. I also have references that say that Karhade brahmin worship Khandoba. Doesn't that constitute most of the brahmin community of Maharathra ? Now , you will once again say, oh, but "cultic worship" is different from "domestic worship". Are there vast differences ? If yu can show that then I will accept the word few before brahmins. My yajurvedi brahmin mother's side of the family had a Khandoba figure in their deoghar. I have seen many brahmin families perform "Gondhal" after a wedding or munj. So most of the "modes of worship" you mention are performed by Brahmins. Now sacrificing an animal or a bird may not be part of brahmin worship but would you regard that necessarily a "cultic" worship ?

I look forward to your comments.Anandbharti (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The number of Konkanstha communities who worship Khandoba is few, only those in Nashik are recorded to imitate the Deshasthas. Most Deshasthas do worship Khandoba and not much in cultic worship. The cultic worship as scholars describe it includes sacrificing an animal or a bird, chain-breaking, self-mortification et al. Also, the classical Brahmin ways of worship like Yajnas, mantras are not considered part of cultic worship. Please provide reliable references to prove "most" part in terms of the cult.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You say "classical brahmin", however classical brahmin way also involved taking part in the Ashvamedh Yajna when the victory horse was sacrificed ! What you should have really said is "contemporary brahmin way". Anyhow, that asides, I suggest we should change the text as follows: According to Stanley et al, Khandoba is worshipped mainly by communities lower in social hierachy but there are a few brahmin and even muslim adherents of the cult. However, earlier studies from 1800s show that Khandoba was worshipped by communities across the social strata that included royal Maratha clans as well as most brahmin communities of Maharathra.

I know you have fixation on Stanley's book and as mentioned before, your reliance on just that reference is not a good idea for an article with GA rating ! Well, you have said there are 100 other references but some of those are miinor and you try your best to reduce their importance. For example, when an old reference said Kokanstatha worship Khandoba, you tried to localize it by saying it only happened in Nasik district. Well, Nasik is not that far from Mumbai or Pune and the Nasik community therefore could not have been that isolated. Anyhow, I hope you get my point. Well , I have to thank you for keeping an eye on this article, however I still think relying on Stanley's reference kind of gives a sensationalized picture of Khandoba worship to those not familiar with Hindu culture.Anandbharti (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"when an old reference said Kokanastha worship Khandoba, you tried to localize it by saying it only happened in Nasik district." Read the reference. It says explicitly: Kokanstathas in Nashik worship Khandoba as an imitation of Deshasthas. "Nasik is not that far from Mumbai or Pune and the Nasik community therefore could not have been that isolated." that is original research. Sontheimer in his book tells that in a 1855 narrative where a Kokanastha and a Christian mocks Khandoba. Newer authors like Arun Kolatkar still do not describe Jejuri in its devotional fervour, which according to [29] is because he is a Konkanstha. Please explain why the Gazette of Ratnagiri [30] does not say Konasthas worship Khandoba, while only the Gazette of Nashik does. Most castes including the Deshastha worship him, but there is no proof - I found - that says all Konkansthas worship him. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, not all kokanstha worship Khandoba but then they account for may be 20% of Maharashtrian brahmin population ( I will submit references later). So if you believe, I am telling the truth, then the sentence should read "a few brahmins do not not worship him". I am a deshastha but have never visited Jejuri and frankly I am not that religious, however, I do not want cultural practices of my relations to be a minority pursuit. Yes, I dug out the references for Ratnagiri and Nasik and other disricts too under an anonymous ID and we have had discussion on this section before . References from the 1800s say that ,hindus belonging to almost all Maharashtrian castes worshipped Khandoba with the exception of Kokanastha. Does this finding give credence to the theory that Kokanastha have not been in Maharashtra for that long? Don't get me wrong, half of my close relations have kokanstha brahmin blood in them. Here I am just trying to get the article to reflect reality rather than the POV of just one book, that's all.Anandbharti (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Reference from Ratnagiri talks only of Deshasthas and Marathas worshipping Khandoba. Also, please do not drag me into a Kokanastha v/s Deshastha dispute about Konasthas' historicity. I am not a Kokanastha or Deshastha and I don't care about the debate. We have reference from 1800s that say Kokanasthas criticized Khandoba and his so-called "impure" temples and cult. Have Kokanasthas changed? I don't know.. but if not, they are not few (20% is huge). Also do Sarswats, Karhade, Devarukkhes worship Khandoba? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is dragging you into Kokanstha v Deshastha debate. it is your intransigence, I don't understand. If 20% is is huge then what would you call the deshastha number which is reported to be much larger than kokanstha ? I could not find direct references to karhade, saraswat or devrukhe worshipping khandoba but then karhades are supposed to be shakt ( devotees of Shakti, the godess) and therefore more likely to worship Bhavani or Mahalaxmi etc. Saraswats are immigrants from goa and therefore revere Mangesh. Devrukhe, I have to say I could not find direct reference, however , they are a much smaller community than either deshastha or kokanastha. In my opinion , you believe, that unless one can write something verbatim from a reference then only it is allowed to be included into wikipedia, otherwise it is OR. A case in point is the sentence we have dispute on. That is straight from Sontheimer's book. As far as criticizing Khandoba worship by the kokanastha, you failed to mention the Christian missionaries. Do you expect christians, especially the missionaries , to respect any Hindu Gods or practices ? I don't even know why you cared to put that sentence in the article. As far as non-brahmin priests are concerned, that was the case with a number of shiva temples in Maharastra. from , first hand experience, I can tell you, the Gurav or shaiv brahmins, of Alandi resent the brahmins for usurping the Guravs' role in being priests to the samadshi of Sant Dnyaneshwar ! During my search I found another report that interestingly mentions Khandoba worship amongst brahmins by Kokanastha only. [31]. i will add that to the article.

I suggest we change "few " to "a significant number" and finish this matter.Anandbharti (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Christian missionaries' criticism of all Hindu gods is usual (is mentioned in article), but Hindus criticizing Hindu gods is unusual. Satara reference is a shocker, Deshasthas are not mentioned worshipping Khandoba and Kokanasthas are. In cultic practices, the presence of Brahmins is negligible. That is what the article says. Not that he is worshipped by "few" Brahmins. To clarify I suggest this structure: "The cult principally consists of Dhangars..., though it includes a fe Brahmins and Muslims. However, Deshastha Brahmins (who form about 60% of the Brahmin population in Maharashta),... worship him as a Kuladevata." --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Please go ahead and make the changes. Anandbharti (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please check if it is ok or any changes are needed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This is OK, as per our discussion. That kind of says that indigenous Marathi hindu castes from all levels of social hierarchy worship him.Anandbharti (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Worship

I propose the following changes to the section worship. It unnecessarily goes into details as to who in which district worships Khandoba especially amongst the brahmins. Please comment.

The article as it is:Worship

Though Shiva is worshipped across Maharashtra in his original form, some Maharashtrian communities prefer to worship him in form of his avatars, Khandoba being the most popular. The cult of Khandoba in the Deccan principally consists of peasant classes Marathas and Kunabis, shepherd Dhangars, village guards and watchmen Ramoshis — a "Denotified tribe", the former "untouchable" Mahars and Mangs, fisher-folk Kolis, balutedar castes like gardeners (Mali) and tailors (Shimpi), though it also includes of a few Brahmins and even some Muslims. Though the Brahmin presence in the cult is nominal, Deshastha Brahmins (constituting of 60% of Maharashtra's Brahmins), as well as the Kokanastha Brahmins - in Nashik and Satara - do worship Khandoba, some imitating the Deshastha Brahmins. The Deshastha Brahmins, Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhus, as well as the royal families like Gaikwads and Holkars worship Khandoba as their family deity (Kuldevta). He is also worshipped by tribals, kings, merchants, Jains and Lingayats. He is viewed as a "king" of his followers. One of the most widely worshipped gods of the Deccan plateau, Khandoba is considered as "the premier god of Sakama bhakti (wish-granting devotion) and one of the most powerful deities responsive to vows (navas)".

References

Proposed changes: Worship

Though Shiva is worshipped across Maharashtra in his original form, some Maharashtrian communities prefer to worship him in form of his avatars, Khandoba being the most popular. According to Stanley in 1977,the cult of Khandoba in the Deccan principally consists of peasant classes Marathas and Kunabis, shepherd Dhangars, village guards and watchmen Ramoshis — a "Denotified tribe", the former "untouchable" Mahars and Mangs, fisher-folk Kolis, balutedar castes like gardeners (Mali) and tailors (Shimpi), though it also includes of a few Brahmins and even some Muslims. However,in contrast to Stanley, earlier British colonial accounts from more than a century ago record worship of Khandoba across all castes including the various brahmin subcastes such as Deshastha, Kokanastha and Karhade.Deshastha Brahmins The Deshastha Brahmins, Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhus, as well as the royal families like Gaikwads and Holkars worship Khandoba as their family deity (Kuldevta). He is also worshipped by tribals, kings, merchants, Jains and Lingayats. He is viewed as a "king" of his followers. One of the most widely worshipped gods of the Deccan plateau, Khandoba is considered as "the premier god of Sakama bhakti (wish-granting devotion) and one of the most powerful deities responsive to vows (navas)".

Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As I have argued before, "The cult of Khandoba in the Deccan principally consists" does not mean that others do not worship Khandoba. But the others are not part of his cult. A similar analogy is: Vithoba is worshipped by many in Maharashtra, but not all are part of his Varkari sect. If I am a Varkari implies I worship Vithoba, but not vice versa. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. In that case we have to explicitly separate the the two modes of worship. How about this ?Jonathansammy (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes-II: Worship

Though Shiva is worshipped across Maharashtra in his original form, some Maharashtrian communities prefer to worship him in form of his avatars, Khandoba being the most popular.. Furthermore, the mode of worship can be differentiated into the "cultic" and mainstream. According to Stanley in 1977, the cult of Khandoba in the Deccan principally consists of peasant classes Marathas and Kunabis, shepherd Dhangars, village guards and watchmen Ramoshis — a "Denotified tribe", the former "untouchable" Mahars and Mangs, fisher-folk Kolis, balutedar castes like gardeners (Mali) and tailors (Shimpi), though it also includes of a few Brahmins and even some Muslims.. In contrast to Stanley, earlier British colonial accounts from more than a century ago record worship of Khandoba across all castes including the various brahmin subcastes. . The mainstream worship of Khandoba by the above mentioned Brahmins, Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhus, as well as the royal families like Baroda Gaikwads and Indore Holkars consists of treating him as their family deity (Kuldevta). He is also worshipped by Jains and Lingayats. He is viewed as a "king" of his followers. One of the most widely worshipped gods of the Deccan plateau, Khandoba is considered as "the premier god of Sakama bhakti (wish-granting devotion) and one of the most powerful deities responsive to vows (navas)".

I don't understand the "In contrast to Stanley" part. Stanley does not say that Brahmins or other castes do not worship Khandoba. He just says that cult is largely non-Brahmin. "mainstream" may be contentious word. Non-cultic worship? The "Though the Brahmin presence in the cult is nominal," part was added to stress the difference between their worship and cultic worship. Also, "all castes" is an overstatement, Konkanasthas are recorded to have villified the deity and Konakanasthas from Konkan (their heartland) are not recorded to have worshipped Khandoba. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. Red Tiger, why are you so hung up on Kokanastha when there are references at least from two districts that mention this community worshipping Khandoba ? Also can you point out any other Marathi Hindu community not worshipping Khandoba ? Also,the beginning of the paragraph dwells on groups lower in hierachy engaging in the cult but then towards the end the paragraph mentions worship by Deshastha, CKP and the Maratha Royal families. In earlier talks with other editors, you have alluded to cultic worship being different from "regular" worship (sattvic bhakti) because the former has a more "exotic" (Rakshashi bhakti?) element to it. in the present article, there seems to be less emphasis on the sattvic element. My relations have a copper figure of Khandoba riding on a horse in their deoghar is worshiped on a daily basis with all the other gods. This type of sattvic worship does not get a mention in the article. I really would like to see this resolved because for me this paragraph has not been satisfactory at all. Like it or not, kokanstha, Eknath and Christian missionaries not withstanding, almost all Marathi Hindu communities worship or have worshipped Khandoba. By adding fluff like 60% of brahmins etc. or "what about kokanastha from Konkan", I feel you try to justify your original thesis that khandoba is the god of those Marathi people who are low in social hierachy Jonathansammy (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Khandoba is the god of those Marathi people who are low in social hierachy" as well as those higher. But saying "all castes" will be an overstatement. "most" is a better word. Do all Brahmin communities worship him or can you guarantee that some caste may not worship him and call Khandoba temples impure? I don't know how people miss the lead that says, so I am copy pasting it again in the worship section. Why do people object if people who are so-called lower in social hierachy (who play a much active part in the rites of the cult) preceed in mention those considered higher? Khandoba accepts "who are low in social hierachy", unlike some Brahmanical sects which kept them away. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Red tiger, Looks better now. However, not to my satisfaction yet. As I said before, we are not differentiating cult from domestic/ Kuldevta worship and that muddles the whole section for somebody not familiar with the topic. In your opinion, if cult and other worship is the same then you have to get rid of "nominal brahmin presence" and say "most brahmins or something similar. Also, when I get more information from my relations (backed, of course by suitable references), on the domestic worship and Khandoba ghatasthapna in Margashirsha , I will add it to this section.

As for response to your comments, can you name one Marathi Hindu community, and not one or two persons, who condemn Khandoba worship ? As established from references earlier, Kokanastha around parts of Maharashtra do worship him so you can not include that community. As you have said in earlier discussions , you are not Kokanastha so you do not have first hand knowledge on that matter. I am a brahmin and as such, I have to say, brahmins will adopt worship of any God as long as there is "Dakshina" to be made. The actor Sunil Dutt belonged to a community called Husseini brahmins who venerated Imam Hussein. A number of cults of Sufi saints, including Saibaba of Shirdi, have brahmin followers. Brahmins will also accept rituals from other religions like the muslim Satya pir and turn it into the most popular Hindu puja called Satyanarayan ! So basically brahmins are quite flexible as to who to venerate and are not always the leaders in accepting a new figure / God but merely follow other castes. Need I say any more on "Khandoba accepts "who are low in social hierachy", unlike some Brahmanical sects which kept them away"Jonathansammy (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Brahmin presence is the cult is nominal. The cult centres- the jagrut kshestras including Jejuri-do not have Brahmins as priests. Stanley calls the cult a non-Brahmin one. Traditional Brahmin rites like yagnas, Sanskrit mantras are discarded. The popular rites like Tali Bharane do not require Brahmin priests. Konkanasthas like Arun Kolatkar still writes without emotion about Jejuri [32]. Is there proof that the "true" Konkanasthas do worship Khandoba? Do Karhades or GSBs worship Khandoba? "All" without a reference is a dangerous overstatement. A section on the domestic worship and Khandoba ghatasthapna in Margashirsha would be a great section. R. C. Dhere in his Khandoba book (Marathi) describes those (the summary of the book on Dhere's site says that), but I don't have a copy. May be you can acquire one. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

When you say and I quote"Is there proof that the "true" Konkanasthas do worship Khandoba? Do Karhades or GSBs worship Khandoba?", you are casting doubt on all the references in this article and others, aren't you? Basically, you are saying the British records of 1871 are wrong but then by the same token one has the right to question everything Stanley and "criminal Gods Demon Devotees" say. As it has been mentioned before, months ago majority of the references in this article originated from just one book. Now that others have added material that dissents from your view point, you challenge that !! I don't think this befits an experienced editor like you. Sad really. By the way, Karhade are known to be Shakt and therefore mainly worship Devis rather then Dev. As mentioned earlier, GSB are not indigeneous to Maharashtra and therefore have their Kuldaivats like Shantadurga and Mangesh in Goa. These communities are really tiny and even if one excludes them and Kokanastha, one can say "vast majority of Marathi Hindu people from all strata worship Khandoba or as you are fond of saying, belong to his cult". Jonathansammy (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The British records of 1871 do not say that Konkanasthas from Konkan worship Khandoba [33] (Harijans are described worshipping Khandoba, also Deshastha Brahimns and Marathas are described to have Khandoba as their family deity), nor do they say that "all" castes worship Khandoba. The British records categorically say in an instance that Konkanasthas imitated Deshasthas to worship Khandoba. [34] says: "after all, Khandoba is basically a deity of the bahujana samaj and also of the Deshastha Brahmins. [Arun] Kolatkar is a Konkanastha. Subliminally, could this be one more reason why Kolatkar has been able to achieve such a strikingly detached stance vis-a-vis Khandoba? " [emphasis as in ref]. "vast majority of Marathi Hindu people from all strata worship Khandoba" - which does not "all" - tallies with the facts. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Harijan" from 1871 ! Could a two year Mohandas Gandhi even speak any language let alone coin that term ? Otherwise OK for the time being or until I can dig out more references. Thanks for your cooperation.Jonathansammy (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"FIRST EDITION; 1880 SECOND EDITION (REVISED) : 1962". Must be a replacement of the D word in the 1962 edition. Would love to see to add more referenced material on non-cultic worship especially. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khandoba. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205032326/http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/india_tribes.html to http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/india_tribes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110418072440/http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/SATARA/places_Pal.html to http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/SATARA/places_Pal.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Legends

Under this topic, it has been mentioned that Mahlsa and Banai, the wives of Martand, were incarnations of Shiva's TRADITIONAL WIVES. Parvati is Shiva's wife, but Ganga never was. Ganga was married to King Shantanu, as per Mahabharat. Also, there is no source mentioned for this information. This should be changed. Vkhat1 (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jejuri.Khandoba.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

• There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs
• The "Khandoba's actual visit and temples:" section is a list without context. What is this, and why is it important?
• The lead is quite short, and doesn't address all major aspects of the article.

Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Khandoba

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. The "Khandoba's actual visit and temples:" section is a list without context. What is this, and why is it important? The lead is quite short, and doesn't address all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)