Talk:List of avatar claimants

Buddha

I have deleted the Image of Buddha from the list of avataras. The thought is repugnant to all buddhists. Buddha can never be an avatara of vishnu. Buddha was an ardent critic of Rigvedic religion ( now called as Hindu religion). I have also changed "Derived Religions" to " Other Religions" The earlier was a mischevious statement implying that other religions are derived from Hinduism.

The obstinate attempt to appropriate the name of Buddha by Bhramins (the priestly class of Hindus)is malicious. Gravely threatened by the onslaught of Buddhism which had almost destroyed the stranglehold of Bhramins over the society, they started usurping the Buddhas religion by calling him an Avatar of Visnu, in order to destroy buddhism,(Buddhism is highly critical of Bhramin supremacy and the foundation of hinduism, The Caste System). This started when the Bhramin commander, Piyushmitra shunga, of the last Mauryan Emperor,assasinated him and took over the throne. He systematically started the persecution of Buddhist monks leading to partial annhilation of buddhism in India. Read Babasaheb Ambedkars Thoughts on the same subject on http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/19A.Revolution%20and%20Counter%20Rev.in%20Ancient%20India%20PART%20I.htm

Buddha is called an Avatar of Lord Vishnu in the Bhagavata Purana (Srimad Bhagavatam). An article examining the proof that the Bhagavata Purana came long before Buddhism can be seen here: http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/sb.htm#3

In that Purana, it is stated that Lord Vishnu incarnated as Buddha in order to deceive the Atheists, not to guide man. Not all of the Avatars of Vishnu are for guiding man, some are for deceiving the evil-doers. Armyrifle 16:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to Buddhism, Buddha is an avatar, he was an avatar of a bodhisattva. The term 'avatar' occured in Buddhist literature before it ever occurred in Hindu literature, and it referred to bodhisattvas descending from Buddhist heavens to take births, sometimes to become Buddhas. --Simon D M (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when was budda born on the same day as charles manson?

Oops. I'm surprised no one noticed that earlier. I created this by taking the table from the "considered to be deity" one and changing the names. I'll fix that.--T. Anthony 04:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Shirdi Sai Baba

Did Shirdi Sai Baba claim to be an avatar? That sounds doubtful to me. I have two books about him at home but I need a lot of time to check them. I remember him saying suggestive things like "Happy are those who believe their guru to be Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva" (or something like that) in the Shri Sai Satcharita (holy book of their followers) but this is not a direct claim, I think. I think however that the burden of proof is on the person who added the entry to provide citations. Andries 21:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I simply copied what was listed in the article avatar to create this list. I really have no strong opinion of the authenticity of what was there. In fact I was hoping this would evolve to become noticeably different then the list there.--T. Anthony 14:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Renamed the article with the same syntax as the List of people considered to be deities, for NPOV and consistency. Also added "Hinduism and derived religions" to broaden the scope for inclusion. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 05:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

J. Krishnamurti?

Was Jiddu Krishnamurti considered an avatar by the Theosophical Society and their followers? The J. Krishnamurti article says they "believed him to be a vehicle for a prophesied World Teacher (see Second Coming; Maitreya Buddha)" ... I went to that page and I guess that would technically mean he was considered a bhodisattva and not an avatar, but then he's not on the list of boddhisatvas.

I originally thought that maybe avatar specifically means an incarnation of a deity from the Vedic/Hindu religion but then I saw that the page says "and other religions" so I thought I would bring this up. Thanks! --24.18.35.120

Shouldn't Jesus Christ be included here, not to mention Lord Krishna and Bhagawan Nityananda MahaDave 21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Jesus Christ is not technically considered an avatar from a Hindu perspective. Krishna is a traditional Hindu avatar, and the page lists the more nontraditional, less universally accepted, "avatars". As for Bhagawan Nityananda, I'm not sure. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 13:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion

Don't merge. A deity is not the same thing as the Hindu concept of the avatar. Tommytocker 20:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Samael Aun Weor4.jpg

Image:Samael Aun Weor4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Sahaj reference

The website appears to be linked to the organization and they are quoting her own words. I am not sure Anon why you see this as not a RS. Hohohahaha (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice Simon, I concur that refference is rock solid. Nice find. Hohohahaha (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, by your own admission, you are a blocked user.... you don't get to play here anymore. Hohohahaha (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Lots of OR in the article

In some cases there is zero references to any sources. One should be careful with that. Please see WP:V and WP:NOTOR for every entry there should be reference to WP:RS. Wikidās ॐ 15:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Can editors please confirm which areas are sourced from what sources please? Wikidās ॐ 17:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Hendrix is considered by many to be an avatar

Like the title says, Hoverfish, the evidence is there and it's properly referenced. Freelion (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Your section was clearly outside the remit of the page (which you changed to justify your section). This is disruption. Stop it. --Simon D M (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Freelion, I saw the link you offered as "evidence". "Avatars" in the sense of Second Life or other virtual world spheres is not the scope of this page, therefore my mention of "nonsense". Also I am quite familiar with Jimi Hendrix and had he made such a claim seriously, I would know. Hoverfish Talk 12:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If Freelion is genuinely confused, and not editing to make a point, he should refer to Avatar (disambiguation). --Simon D M (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hoverfish - the word avatar does have multiple meanings, but in this context, it refers to the Hindu concept of an avatar. I am yet to meet a Hindu who worships Jimi Hendrix =) --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 13:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Colors

Not exactly an important point, but are the colors supposed to alternate? Later additions to the table have clearly not been fixed, and the result is not what I call aesthetically pleasing :) Should we continue to alternate colors, since as the list gets longer it may be harder to update the table colors. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 13:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Buddha

I removed the "heterodox" part not only because it is unsourced but also because some traditional schools do accept Buddha as an avatara of Vishnu and instead consider Balarama avatara to be heterodox if included in the Dashavatara. 71.159.144.93 (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Buddha should really be removed from this list, since he is considered as a part of the Dashavatara by many Hindus, including some traditional schools. Unlike the others listed here, those who consider Buddha part of the Dashavatara are not a minority group. This was also discussed at the CfD for Category:People who have been considered avatars, where Buddha was also removed. For these reasons, I am removing Buddha from this list. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 16:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

New Category

The Category:People who have been considered avatars was created after discussion about inclusion of Swaminarayan (and possibly others of similar status) into such potential category as well as its associated list, List of people who have been considered avatars. The category is currently being considered for deletion. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ghanshyam Pandey

Do any Swaminarayan groups besides BAPS consider him to be an avatar? --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 16:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Meher Baba

Should he be included on the list? There is a discussion on his talk page. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 16:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Saw1.gif

The image Image:Saw1.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Adi Da Samraj 2000.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hitler?

Nazi Ideologue Savitri Devi suggests in her book The Lightning and The Sun (and elsewhere) that Adolf Hitler was the 10th Avatar of Vishnu, Kalki. This is a belief that I suspect is still held by many Neo-Nazis. Perhaps it warrants inclusion in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.147.210.162 (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Adi Da

I am removing this entry because in the quote by him given as a reference he is clearly stating that he does NOT wish to be mistaken for saying he is God or making a claim of his own Divinity. "By avatarically revealing and confessing my Divine status to one and all, I am not indulging in self-appointment, or illusions of grandiose Divinity. I am not claiming the status of the Creator God." (Adi Da ~ Da Love-Ananda Gita First word , Page 21 , 2nd Edition 2000) If someone wants to put it back they should add a quote where his state as incarnation of God is affirmed by him, not denied. LittleDoGooder (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

LittleDoGooder, do you understand why this article is being kept separate from List of people who have been considered deities? I daresay "avatarically revealing and confessing my Divine status" amounts to being an "avatar claimant".

I am restoring the un-gutted version of January. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's 2015, I added Adi Da , not having seen this Talk page; instantly reverted by User:Dazedbythebell "(Please replace with a reliable reference." There are several. Such as the quote above, as Dbackmann says, "By avatarically revealing and confessing my Divine status to one and all," , which He IS saying He's doing, He disclaims " self-appointment", "illusions", or being "Creator". He IS claiming to be an Avatar. Also, on Adi Da, wikipedia article, 2nd paragraph, there is another avatar claim with reference. Also, on http://adidam.org we see his latest, and presumably last name change is "Avatar Adi Da Samraj" (Samraj == Greatest King). Is that sufficient? GangofOne (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Can't you put it back with a reference to a book in which he states in clear words he is an avatar? The statement "avatarically revealing" is too vague. It is not clear to others what the expression means. Find a clear statement of declaration. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

I see in the main article it says that he says he is the avatar. But so far no one has supplied a reference for where he said this. I don't doubt it. I merely am seeking someone to help to find a reference for a quote by him saying this. The reference that was there had no mention of the word avatar. I will continue to look also. LittleDoGooder (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to Sathya's discourses and also Wikiquote. I have looked and can find no statement by him in which he uses the word "avatar" or "avatara." Also no follower has come forward with a citation for this claim by him. Redletternight (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

His precise claim is as follows: Claims that his is a "human form in which every divine entity, every divine principle, that is to say, all the names and forms ascribed by man to God, are manifest." (From the constantly quoted 17 May 1968 discourse The Revelation, VI, 210-213.)[1] No mention of the word "avatar" appears in the discourse. Careful reading reveals that Sathya, at least here, makes no claim by any particular Sanskrit term, neither using the word satguru nor avatar. Thus he could be saying any number of things. To make an assumption of what term he is claiming for himself is purely speculative, unless a better source than this can be found. My own research has turned up nothing, but I'm still looking. Redletternight (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-added with another quote. Andries (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

who have claimed and are considered by others

The wording has been slightly changed from "have been considered to be by others" to "claimed and are considered to be by others" to not include suggestions such as Jimmy Hendrix and Adolph Hitler who never claimed they were avatars but there are some people in the world who have written things like that. The older criteria could include almost anyone. Redletternight (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

Please try to give references that include the term "avatar" or "avatara." Interpretations of statements to "mean" avatar, without giving citations by published sources amounts to original research. Note, for example that Nirmala Srivastava does not herself claim to be an avatar. Redletternight (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ

Wasn't Jesus Christ the reincarnated Joshua, also being an avatar of Eli/Yahweh? Catterick (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Some have suggested this. But the Christians like to draw a distinction. See Incarnation (Christianity). The Incarnation is not a recurring phenomena like the avatar concept.

Redletternight (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggested move to Avatar Claimants

I suggest this Wikipedia List be renamed (moved) to 'List of Avatar Claimants.'

1. This is more consistent with other similar Wikipedia Lists such as List of messiah claimants and List of Buddha claimants.
2. There are likely to be published comparisons to the avatar concept for so many people who have never claimed to be the avatar. As named above, Jesus Christ, Adolph Hitler, and even Jimmy Hendrix, have been described as avatars in published literature. So the List title "List of people who have been considered avatars" is so vague as to be problem producing.
3. Many of the names on this list that have appeared at times are people who never suggested they were avatars or the avatara, and in fact in some cases expressely cautioned against people mistaking their discourses as implying this (Adi Da is a good example: "By 'avatarically revealing and confessing my Divine status to one and all', I am not indulging in self-appointment, or illusions of grandiose Divinity. I am not claiming the status of the Creator God.").
4. Some of the people who have at times been listed were put here by people who were merely trying to interpret the meaning of the person's words about themselves, and also interpret the meaning of "avatara." This winds up becoming original research by necessity. Sometimes it comes down to attempting to syncretize words, such as God-man or messiah or Incarnation (Christianity) with the Hindu concept of the recurring avatars. This attempt at syncretism is itself original research. See Wikipedia:No original research.
5. By changing the name to List of Avatar Claimants you are going to have a much shorter list that is much easier to verify.
6. By leaving it as it is, the list stands the chance of becoming a meaningless subjective list of opinions, interpretations, and original research.
7. The notion of calling someone an avatar in its original Hindu context is highly complicated because in Hinduism everyone is an 'incarnation' of divinity. In fact, in the Advaita branch of Hinduism, every atman (soul) is really One with and identical to "Brhaman" (the Creator God). Thus in a sense everyone is an avatar. So it is extremely easy to misinterpret the meaning of an Indian saint's words to mean he is saying he is the or a avatar in a unique sense. This is helped by including only those who specifically claimed to be avatar or avatara by that terminology. Otherwise interpretations are a little suspect. In Hinduism we are all, in truth, one and identical with God. But we are not all avatars.

Redletternight (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This list is an ill-defined mess and it's only getting messier. There are currently no clear criteria for how you get on the list. Considered? By whom? Claiming to be Avatar is NOT the criteria. See the AFD discussion -- this is the list of persons that OTHERS consider to be Avatar (except that it must not include any claimants in the Dasavatara list and it must not include Buddha). Maybe I consider Sathya Sai Baba to be Avatar. Can I put him back on, based on my say so? Maybe I think my little sister is Avatar, although I doubt she knows the meaning of the word. Also Strom Thurmond and Karl Marx. Can I put them on as well? Is a specific number of believers required to make the cut? Or is it only an avowal of personal sincerity. Changing the criteria to a personal claim to the title brings everything into clarity. BIG SUPPORT for rename. --nemonoman (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. There may be a need for an administrator if this if this is what people elect to do as there is already a redirect at "List of avatar claimants." I now see there should be no problem. See Wikipedia:Move#Moving over a redirect. Redletternight (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that a week is plenty of time for comments.--nemonoman (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Deletion would be better. If I claim that I'm an avatar, then .... no, better not do that :-) Priyanath ^talk 04:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• I see that I'm a bit late for the discussion, but I do support this change. I have to say, though, that this list is becoming more problematic. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 01:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a list of divine people who one could assign the word avatar

This is not a list of people who have said things that could be interpreted to mean they are avatars by extrapolating on the meaning of their words. It's a list of people who have said they are avatars using that word. If one were to extrapolate what is meant, for instance, by "incarnation of the divine" then Jim Jones and David Koresh would be on this list. The parameters of the criteria had to be narrowed because of the temptation to interpret what people have said which would cause the list to degenerate into original research and be subject to endless debate. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that this list is going to include anyone who was ever verifiably claimed to be an "avatar" of some deity (usually Hindu) in any verifiable and quotable source. The purpose of article renaming isn't to reduce the scope of the article so much that a "list" article ends up with two or three items. We don't need a separate article for "here's two people who said they were avatars", if that's what this is supposed to be, we can just make it a very short section at List of people who have been considered deities. The only point of keeping this article separate is the more ambiguous or wider sense of the term "avatar" compared to "deity". --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus that the purpose of this list was to be "more ambiguous or wider sense of the term 'avatar' compared to 'deity.'" You write above, I understand that this list is going to include anyone who was ever verifiably claimed to be an "avatar" of some deity. How did you come to this understanding. It is the opposite of the discussions above, that wished to narrow the scope to something that can be verified. If you wish this list to be deleted, then please propose that in the proper way. I personally would not oppose a deletion. I agree the list serves very little purpose. You could also propose another name change that is closer to what you would like it to include. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should summarize what the consensus was for the name change. A list of people who have ever lived that others have claimed to be an "avatar" in some sense has the potential to be limitless. There are verifiable published sources that some people have claimed Hitler, Manson, and Jimmi Hendrix to have been avatars. So it was decided to include only those notable people who clearly and specifically made this claim about themselves. Secondly, it was thought that to include people who made claims about themselves that could be interpreted to mean they were avatars also was potentially limitless. The reason is that in the East especially, the conception is that we are all in fact Brahman. Thus in a sense we all are the deity descended - thus an avatar in one sense. So any teacher of advaita vedanta, for example, will say he is the deity descended into physical form. This is true of all of us, and that is the point of that expression. So it is very easy to interpret such statements to be equal to claims of being 'the avatara.' Even if they say they are Vishn, Shiva, or Brahman, or all three, this still is true of all people in one sense in eastern philosophy. Yet the mythological appearance of 'the avatara' is a separate concept. And I can't quite explain why that is. I don't know enough about it. So this is why the list was narrowed to people who make the claim of avatarhood using the word "avatar." In many of the cases that werer previously listed, no reference could be found that they ever said they were the avatara. One, in fact, actually went out of his way to claifiy that he was not making that claim and shouldn not be misunderstood as saying that. Yet his name was still included, with this exact quote given as the reference that he referred to himself as avatar. The point is not to have a big scope or a small scope, but to have a clear uniform scope. If it is too vague then there is no way to have a scope at all. It becomes a veritable list of opinions and potential quarrels. I suggest either staying to a clear scope that precludes argument or simply remove the list. In a way it's a silly list. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on moving the term Avatar to primary topic

There is an ongoing discussion [here] on moving the term Avatar from the popular film back to its original place as a primary topic. Hoverfish Talk 15:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu

A few questions on this one - I added Chaitanya Mahaprabhu to the list because after studying the Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Wikipedia page, it seems as though his followers considered him to be an avatar of Krishna. My addition was recently reverted on the basis of POV and "copying from Wiki page." It looks like many of the other avatars on the list have descriptions copied from their respective Wiki pages. While I do agree that the citation/source provided on the Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Wiki page may not be reliable, there are other avatars on this list (i.e. Kunwar Haripaladeva, Shirdi Sai Baba, etc.) that need citations as well. Would love to hear others thoughts. I've reverted the deletion until I have more voices from others on the points I made above.

Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Whitestart12 I don't think Chaitanya Mahaprabhu belongs to this list - a scripture written by Krishnadasa Goswami I believe discusses about Chaitnanya being avatara. The others you have mentioned, probably belongs to this list. Also, don't think Kunwar Haripaladeva should be in this list - him being considered an avatara doesn't seem to be mentioned in reliable sources. Asteramellus (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Asteramellus, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu does not belong to this list.

This page list is only for mentioning those who are not mentioned in any scripture but claim either by themselves or by their followers as Avatar.

The page "Avatar" mentions all avatars specifically mentioned in the scriptures. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is already mentioned in this page.

From the page Chaitanya Mahaprabhu you studied, it has also mentioned that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is mentioned in "various scriptures as an avatar".

To my knowledge he is definitely mentioned in various scriptures. What I personally know is he is mentioned in Bhavishya Purana, Garuda Purana, Bhagavata Purana, Chaitanya-charitamrta & Manava Purana.

(Gita-Press Shri-Chaitanya-charitamrit: https://gitapressbookshop.in/1662-shri-chaitanya-charitamrit-bangla?search=Chaitanya) According to the scripture Chaitanya-charitamrta; it mentions Chaitanya Mahaprabhu many times as avatar of Krishna.

"CC Ādi 7.11". vedabase.io. Archived from the original on 23 September 2020. Retrieved 26 December 2021.

According to the scripture Bhavisya Puran (Chapter 10 - Pratisarga Parva (Chaturtha Khaṇḍa), Bhaviṣya Purāṇa), Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is mentioned as avatar of Vishnu.

(Bhaviṣya Purāṇa HINDI, Part 2, Page: 635: https://archive.org/details/BhavishyaPuranPart1/Bhavishya%20Purana%20%20Part%202%20/page/n647/mode/2up?view=theater) Siddheshmane900 (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Siddheshmane900 I cannot find any objective references to Chaitanya being "mentioned", as you claim, as an avatar of Vishnu in the Puranas specifically. I can't speak for the other scriptures. The most I can find are oblique inferences in the Puranas, which are accepted only by Gaudiya Vaishnavas, based on skin complexion, time period, or place of birth. These overarching statements aren't "mentions". This obviously doesn't dispute faith in him being an avatar for who chooses to believe, obviously, but your statement is misleading. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 07:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The Garud Puran (1.15.44-47) (Vishnu sahasranama mentions his name as chaitanya-rupak) the rest puranas u may argue that it is based on skin complexion, accepted by Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

Regarding Bhavishya Purana, allow me make it more clear for you.

Bhavishya Purana, Pratisargaparvan, Part 4, Chapter 10. This entire chapter is on Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

You will be surprised that not once but countless times Chaitanya is mentioned in this purana.

Exact Sanskrit Slokas: https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/bhavishya-purana-sanskrit/d/doc1271320.html

I am sure this should clear ur doubts. Read any Bhavishya Purana by any authentic publisher, the chapter number I have given.

For example: Publisher: Gita Press

Bhavishya Purana, Book Page: 352 onwards. (Archive Link Page: 362 onwards) Link: https://archive.org/details/bhavishya-puran-gita-press-gorakhpur/page/n362/mode/1up Siddheshmane900 (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Chronikhiles. I'm looking at these sources, and I don't see Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's name mentioned directly in any of the slokas. Some of the earlier sources referenced [source 1, source 2, source 3] also don't seem to comply with WP:RS, and the two provided above appear to be primary sources [WP:Primary]. I also took a closer look at the page edit history, and it seems like IP 197.248.138.202 had added/ changed the criteria of this page [diff link 1]. Entries were then added to fit this criteria [diff link 2], and entries are being removed that don't fit this criteria, created by this IP [diff link 3].

According to the discussion on the talk page, it seems like the criteria from 10/2023 was reached after much discussion. If we'd like to revisit this criteria, we would need consensus. For this reason, I'll revert to the original version before changes were made by the IP & others until there is further discussion on what is and isn't acceptable for this page.

Thanks!! Whitestar12 (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Siddheshmane900 I appreciate you trying to "clear my doubts" with an unreliable source, mighty kind of you. I'd appreciate it if you conformed to Wikipedia policy on neutrality. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 15:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Whitestar12 These sources may seem to be unreliable to you, If you read any authentic publication of Bhavishya Purana, (Pratisargaparvan, Part 4, Chapter 10) is on Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, it mentions his name many times in this chapter. If you disagree to this, it would mean you have not read the Purana or you don't understand sanskrit or hindi language.

For example: (the below verses directly mention his name and if you read further you will find his name being mentioned many times)

visarjati narānbhavānkaruṇayā prapālya kṣitau nivedayitumudbhavaḥ parātparaṃ svakīyaṃ padam |

kalau ditijasaṃbhavādhivyathābdhisuramagnagānsamuddhara mahāprabho kṛṣṇacaitanya śacīsuta || Verse 32 ||

mādhuryyairmadhubhissugaṃdhavadanaḥ svarṇāṃbujānāṃ vanaṃ kāruṇyā mṛtanirjharairupacitaḥ satpremahemācalaḥ |

bhaktāṃbhodharadhāriṇī vijayinī niṣkaṃpasaptāvalī devo naḥ kuladevataṃ vijayate caitanyakṛṣṇo hariḥ || Verse 33 ||

I believe I may not have the reliable sources that could convince you or comply with what you say but disagree with your statement that Chaitanya's name is not mentioned in the Purana.

I respect @Chronikhiles, his contribution is alot so if he says I have provided unreliable sources, then let it be so. It doesn't change anything in the Purana, if one wants to believe or not. All I request you both is please read the original Bhavishya Purana and you will definitely see Chaitanya's name mention. Gita Press publication is very much authentic, if you consider that to be unreliable then i have nothing much to say. You need not to worry, I will not do any changes, respect whatever contributions you have done and distance myself from wikipedia. Thankyou. Siddheshmane900 (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Mel Lyman

I added Mel Lyman and cited an article from Esquire magazine, reposted on trussel.com. @Whitestar12 reverted, noting that trussel.com is not an RS. I wouldn't put stock in trussel.com either. But Esquire seems to qualify as an RS, and the same article appears on Esquire's own site at [2]https://classic.esquire.com/article/1968/2/1/god-is-back. Should we restore Mel Lyman with the improved citation?

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @O Govinda!

1] Esquire is likely a reliable source considering both GQ and Cosmopolitan are considered reliable [WP:RSPSS]. However, it would depend on the nature of the article. I can't open the article since I don't have an Esquire subscription.

2] Mel Lyman is likely not a candidate for this page. From a quick glance, it seems like he founded a newspaper named "Avatar." Additionally, it says he claims to have been God, potentially Christ. Avatar is a concept in Hinduism, and I don't see claims that he was an avatar of a Hindu god. Perhaps a more appropriate place might be the List of people claimed to be Jesus?

Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you, @Whitestar12.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)