Talk:Koka and Vikoka

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Krishnaism (assessed as Low-importance).

Bakasura

According to an english translation of the Kalki Purana, Kali's generals Koka and Vikoka are the twin sons of Bakasura. Now I've found two different Bakasuras in Hindu mythology:

1) The underling of Kamsa. This one attacked young Krishna in the form of a huge crane Demon. He died at Krishna's hand.

2) The brother of Kirmira (किर्मीर). This Bakasura (बक) was a Rakshasa who died at the hands of Bhima during the exile of the Pandavas.

The Kalki Purana does not elaborate on which Bakasura this is. I'm writing a small book based on this Purana and I need to know which one this is. Its kind of hard since both lived during the time of Krishna.

The Purana also states "The Twins" were grandsons of Shakuni, the uncle of the Kaurava King Duryodhana. Duryodhana is thought to be an avatar of the Kali (Demon). This could mean that the three are related. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 00:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Nevermind, I just recently found out that they are just similarly named people in the 4,320th century when this prophecy is supposed to happen.(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 19:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This is not accurate

The article says: "...comparing the concept of the "great wall" (which in the Abrahamic tradition protects humanity against Gog and Magog) with the Hindu notion of a "circular wall" (Lokâloka) which separates the "world" (loka) from "outer darkness" (aloka)."

This is not so - Abrahamic tradition (whatever that vague term might mean) does not include a a "great wall" protecting humanity, the "lokaloka" is not a wall but a mountain range, and "aloka" does not mean "outer darkness" (it means "not-world"). I'll delete it if it can't be defended.PiCo (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Abrahamic tradition (whatever that vague term might mean) does not include a a "great wall" protecting humanity" Are you kidding ? Refer to is said about it in the Koran and hadiths. BTW "Abrahamic tradition " is not vague at all: it's Judaism + Christianity + Islam. And aloka is a (= negation) + loka ("world). This is precisely the signification of "outer darkness" (beyond the world illuminated i.e.knowledgeable in a universal manner). Such concepts are basic in symbolism studies. And, once again, lokaloka is a circular mountain, depicted precisely as a protection. The subject and its connections has already been discussed elsewhere, you won't delete anything. Xinheart (talk) 11:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wall in the Quran comes from the Alexander Romance, which is not part of Abrahamic tradition (part of the Alexander tradition, perhaps). The hadiths, of course, are simply elaborations of the Quran. The remainder of your reply is erroneous. PiCo (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming pityful: the circular shape of Lokâloka is explicitely written in hindu texts and the wall described in the Koran is... koranic and hence Abrahamic. Now your edits are becoming clearer: you are trying to introduce the fact that Islam is not an "Abrahamic tradition". Good luck... Xinheart (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islam is normally regarded as an Abrahamic religion, because the Quran is based largely on Jewish and Christian traditions and texts circulating in the Arabian peninsula in the early 7th century. The Gog/Magog (Yajooj/Majooj) material in the Quran, however, is not from any Christian or Jewish source, but from a 6th Century Syriac version of the Alexander Romance. But the real thing is, you need relevant reliable sources to support your idea that Koka/Vikoka have any connection with Gog/Magog. If you can't find these, the material has to go.PiCo (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After all this nonsense about lokaloka, now about Islam and the Qur'an. You are completely out of the point, as usual. The reference has been given, I see no reason to pursue that discussion. If you withdraw the edit, I will reintroduce it. Xinheart (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we'd established that Rene was self-educated, had no academic training, never held an academic position, never published in peer-reviewed outlets, and is never cited by modern scholars. We have to stick to reliable sources. PiCo (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree he's not an academic, but he is a notable author, acknowledged as such by best european academics (for instance at École pratique des hautes études), and PhDs are defended on his works. He is a recognized metaphysician. Xinheart (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's not notable - if he were he'd be cited by reliable sources in the relevant field, and he isn't. This is not an article about metaphysics, it's about Hindu mythology. PiCo (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is definitively notable, and metaphysics is intrinsically related to the subject, just as theology and classical scholastics are related to Christian texts. By the way, you'd be better off providing citation for your (interesting) depiction of Koka and Vikoka's "faces". Interestingly, it corresponds to the classical depiction of Yajooj and Majooj in islamic eschatology... Xinheart (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xinheart, when this dispute goes to resolution, which will happen very soon, these two articles (this and Gog/Magog) can be dealt with together. The basic point is, articles have to have reliable sources.PiCo (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict resolution has been already set up, per a request from you BTW, and the conclusion does not follow your views. Xinheart (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite based on the sources

As I posted at Talk:Gog and Magog:

Looking into it, Przyluski was reviewing Abegg's "Der Messiasglaube in Indien und Iran, auf Grund der Quellen dargestellt," which itself does not appear to mention Gog, Ya'juj or Ma'juj, Ya'jooj or Ma'jooj, or (as the German Wikipedia lists them) Magog, Ya'gug or Ma'gug. Another review of Abegg's book does not touch on Gog and Magog, either. As far as can be demonstrated, this idea appears to only be brought forth by Przyluski (who was admittedly a linguist) and Guénon (who was writing from, frankly, a theological perspective instead of a scientific one).

Przyluski is clear that he believes that Koka and Vikoka are derived (via Arabic literature) from Gog and Magog: "Koka et Vikoka ne sont pas des noms aryens et il est tenant de les rapprocher de Gog et Magog. Ces deux noms ont pu pénétrer dans l'Inde par l'intermédiaire de la littérature arabe." (page 4).

Guénon is not explicit in the idea of the Great Wall being Islamic, he regularly alternates between Islam and Hinduism without noting when he has changed lanes. As such, the current material appears to be interpretation rather than summary.

I think we should only limit this to:

Jean Przyluski suggested that the characters Koka and Vikoka were derived from Gog and Magog via Arabic literature.(citation with quote and page number this time) René Guénon likewise noted that their names were "obviously similar," combining their apocalyptic roles in his book The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times.(citation, specifically mentioning page 173)

This version contains WP:No original research nor WP:Undue weight. If further detail about Guénon is truly merited, then non-primary sources would be available. If there are no sources, zealotry is not a substitute. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Przyluski's suggestion (made in I think 1928?) has not been accepted by modern scholarship it's a less than fringe idea and shouldn't be mentioned.PiCo (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]