Talk:Kapila

Krishna and the Samkhya panth:

I will add the following text into the article:

Lord Shri Krishna also speaks of Kapiladev's teachings as one path of the Sanatan Dharma:

• "Only the ignorant speak of devotional service [karma-yoga] as being different from the analytical study of the material world [Sankhya]. Those who are actually learned say that he who applies himself well to one of these paths achieves the results of both." (Gita 5.4)[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HinduDefender (talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Hello MA, personally I think the quotation would be more relevant in the Sankhya article as it doesn't discuss Maharshi Kapila specifically? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Further Geeta 10.26:

aśhvatthaḥ sarva-vṛikṣhāṇāṁ devarṣhīṇāṁ cha nāradaḥ | gandharvāṇāṁ chitrarathaḥ siddhānāṁ kapilo muniḥ ||

Amongst trees I am the peepal tree (sacred fig tree); of the celestial sages I am Narad. Amongst the gandharvas I am Chitrath, and amongst the siddhas I am sage Kapil

Clearly the timelines of this article need to be updated and Kapil muni should be dated by ack 5000 BC. 173.91.45.123 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Kapila's descendants

" Kapila's descendants can still be found in Punjab in North India, and in the Fenlands, UK."

This is why i love the wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klasovsky (talk • contribs) 22:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Copy editing in § "Modern-day Homage by Hindus"

Whenever I get around to it, I plan on doing some minor but not inextensive copy editing to this section. It strikes me in a few spots as having probably been written by a non-native speaker of English. No biggie, but figured I should give you fine folks who've made the article as good as it is today a "heads up" before I just go in and start doing word surgery. :^) :^) ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻  ^{{say it} { ζ(3) } {did it}} 01:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

salt ocean?

@Capankajsmilyo: what does this mean, "let their shanks blow together across the salt-ocean" in this article? Please clarify or delete that sentence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch done -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rugged Player: Please review wikipedia's WP:Plag and WP:Copyvio policies. If you copy-paste entire sentences, you must attribute in line and in text. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

For Sarah Welch

@Ms Sarah Welch: - Refer to your edit, may I know if Haldane and Dronamraju are good enough authors to claim Kapila was a Vedic sage? Why would you overlook Note 1 and Note 2? How do we know Kapila mentioned in any veda is also the creator of Sankhya school? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: Haldane and Dronamraju are indeed good enough authors and an Oxford University Press publication by them is indeed WP:RS. No original research in wikipedia, just summarize what the WP:RS state. I did see notes 1 and 2, they are consistent with Kapila being a Vedic sage. Vedas have many aspects. Atheism is as much Vedic, as rituals and deities. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Sigh! again. Are Haldane and Dronamraju historians? Were are their sources? Why jump to original research? What makes you think notes 1 and 2 are consistent with Kapila being vedic sage? (seriously!) Can you find a 'good enough' source to show the author of Sankhya lived in the vedic period? Also, do Haldane and Dronamraju become better sources than Chakravarti's work mentioned in note 2? Go thru his work here See what he says on Kapila in page 111-112. What has this got to do with atheism in the vedas? You see Ms.Welch, you have a peculiar problem - if something mentioned somewhere in print; that's a wiki source; sans reasoning.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

BTW, I agree about lulu.com (sorry had not cross checked if published elsewhere).--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: We have been through this line of argument in Talk:Maya (illusion) (see its archive and current talk page). I am not going to repeat it. You are plainly mistaken in your "reasoning (wisdom, prejudice, opinion)", as well as relevant facts. Let us stick to reliable sources for this article, and any other wiki article you choose to edit, not forum-y discussion or picking a side based on @Mayasutra's "wisdom, prejudice, opinion, original research, interpretation, reasoning". Please see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:TPNO. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Enough! Just do this: (1) Find a source to show Kapila, the author of (any) Sankhya composition lived in the vedic period (2) Find a source to show Kapila of Vedas is Kapila of Samkhya. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: Already did long before you typed this "Enough!". Read the two cited sources. One is a secondary RS from Oxford University Press, and another is a tertiary RS Encyclopedia Britannica. Please review WP:COMPETENCE page: I can't help you if you can't read or are unwilling to read the cited sources in this article, or are unable to understand them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Again, your Oxford Uni Press sources Haldane and Dronamraju mention no reference/source. So, removing it. Encyclopedia Britannica is not sure. It says, rather asks, "Kapila, (flourished 550 bce?)" but goes on to label him a Vedic sage! I asked you to just do this: (1) Find a source to show Kapila, the author of (any) Sankhya composition lived in the vedic period (2) Find a source to show Kapila of Vedas is Kapila of Samkhya. It is apparent you cannot do so. Anyways, it is apparent, the very competent Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) assumes the Vedic sage "is often identified as one of the founders of the system of Samkhya"! (so much for claimed quality of editors of EB). For wiki, that should serve the purpose. So, am removing Haldane and Dronamraju and replacing with EB.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: We don't do OR on peer reviewed secondary sources in wikipedia, as @Kautilya3 explained to you on Talk:Maya (illusion). We can't keep repeating ourselves. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, lady, already wrote above that Encyclopedia Britannica should serve the purpose for wiki; although it is strange that you change your source to the 1998 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica while the 2015 updated Encyclopedia Britannica puts a question mark "Kapila, (flourished 550 bce?)". Anyways, who asked you to repeat yourself. You seem to like to inform and explain things that are not relevant.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Copyvio cleanup

@Mayasutra: I have deleted much of this edit by you, as it appears to be cut and paste of text from somewhere, with its cite number, for abundance of caution per WP:Copyvio. For example, you added "(...) As already stated, the horse-faced form undoubtedly represents Narayana.[11] Kapardi, the one with matted locks may be identified with the sage Kapila who figures with Varaha and Vivasvat. It is interesting to note that according to a tradition Varaha also is the name of an asura.[12] Vivasvat also has an asura association. Vaivasvata Yama of the Rigveda[13] (...)". The [11] etc obviously do not refer to the cite numbers in this article, and is from some other source. Further, it reads like WP:Primary, undue and not mainstream. If you would like to retain it, please identify where you got this from, and explain why it is WP:Due. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sarah Welch: (1) Do you have a problem with inline text? Yep it is copy-paste as already mentioned "Quote from p.49-51:" What's your problem with that? (2) When you state your source do you state his references also? Any reader can access the journal to look up Chaturvedi's references. I have mentioned the numbers as is. Anyways, they can be removed. (3) So, such a detailed study of inscriptions and comparison of iconography by S.N.Chaturvedi (a professor in ancient history who also did some pioneering work in indian archaeology) should not be entertained since you claim it is not mainstream??!! What do you mean 'where you got this from'? Can you please read the source stated in the article -- Chaturvedi, S.N. (1985). "The Vaikuṇtha image and the Khajurāho inscription of Yaśovarmmadeva". Journal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art, Volume 14, p.48. Indian Society of Oriental Art. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) ?--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: See WP:Copyvio, WP:FAIRUSE and WP:NFCCP. We can't cut and paste massive amount of copyrighted text in wiki articles. If a few sentences or a portion of a quote will suffice, only that should be used. To cut and paste a massive amount of text from pages 49 to 51 of a source as you did, to support this small clause, "and the early Samkhya philosophers were possibly disciples of female teachers.{{refn|group=note|Quote from p.49-51: ...", is not fair use. Further, in this article on Kapila, how is "Samkhya philosophers being disciples of female teachers" relevant and not misleading? How is it WP:Due? Is the author saying anywhere that "Kapila was the disciple of female teacher(s)?" Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, small cause? Why do you like assuming? You also removed the statement "the metamorphosis of the asura Kapila is associated with the transformation of the Samkhya from atheist to idealist" which the same citation served. I put only a few statements from p.49-51; not entire text from those pages. I guess it takes density of some amount to ask your last 2 questions. If you had read the citation, you wud know how the author and Chattopadhyaya posit the transformation of female Kapila into male Kapila. Moreover, female Kapila is not misleading. It is in the MBh. Why should the author say Kapila was a disciple of female teacher(s) (gosh, lol!)???--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Diannaa: Could you please add any policy page links I missed, clarify the copyvio policy, fair use restrictions on massive cut and paste of copyrighted works in wiki articles. As example, see this edit by @Mayasutra, to support a small clause. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The quotation is excessive and unnecessary; it violates our non-free content policy. As Mayasutra already says, "Any reader can access the journal", so there's no need for this excerpt to be included in the citation. — Diannaa (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide guidelines how much quotation (in notes) is excessive? Sorry, you cannot claim it is unnecessary. When I said "Any reader can assess the journal" it was meant for our wonderful @Ms Sarah Welch:'s expectation that I should mention my source's references also (something which she does not do but expects others to do). Great! Anyways, am willing to provide the references if that's not going to make the citation even longer.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Dating

@Ms Sarah Welch: You changed your source to use 1998 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica while the 2015 updated Encyclopedia Britannica puts a question mark "Kapila, (flourished 550 bce?)". Moreover, you use Haldane and Dronamraju again, who mention no reference/source for their claim. So also with your new source Guida Myrl Jackson-Laufer who must as great as Gonda for you. Moreover you claim "This places him in the late Vedic period (1500 BCE to 500 BCE), and he has been called a Vedic sage.[3][4]" Obviously there is no clarity whether it was 6th or 7th century BC. But you are sure he was born in the late vedic period. You have the old version of Encyclopedia Britannica, Guida Myrl Jackson-Laufer (!), John Haldane (!) and Krishna Dronamraju (!) to attest to your claim. Then you put aside better source which mention 7th century BC into 'others', like A. L. Herman and James G. Lochtefeld (a prof of religion). Anyways, good luck with your OCD. You can edit as you wish. Never seen Asians behaving in the past, the way a small bunch of you folks do. Great to see your man RexxS using words like stfu on a noticeboard. Well, what to say? Have never supported the Indian rightwing. But I guess folks like you make it necessary to ensure Indian history is not contorted by great western historians just bcoz they wanna claim things with publications under oxford university press. And what with ppl like you doing the POV-Pushing on public sites. Anyways, am done with this. Yet again. Your intelligence in claiming he belonged to the vedic period is amazing! Truly! That's something I cannot work with. So, thanks and good luck to you. Bye.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: This talk page must focus on this article. For your information, 6th century BCE = 600-500 BCE, 7th century BCE = 700-600 BCE. All sources are saying the same thing, your comments are strange, your attack on multiple scholars/sources is inappropriate and your assumptions/allegations about the scholars, @RexxS or me are puzzling and false. This article's talk page should not be used for personal attacks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

All sources are saying the same thing? That 600-500 BCE and 700-600 BCE are the same? lol If that is so, why don't you cite Herman and Lochtefeld also in your claim of 6th century BC. It should not matter to you that Herman and Lochtefeld date him to 7th century BC. You do not have to keep informing things just bcoz you like to presume / assume (as you always do).. BTW, your scholars are Guida Myrl Jackson-Laufer (a journal editor!), John Haldane (a scientist!) and Krishna Dronamraju (a scientist!) -- none who state a source for their claim of 6th century BC. Also, it would take some sense to understand they are not the ones under attack. Because they claim/write in their limited understanding (that too without mentioning their sources). It is you. That's because what you do is plain POV-pushing using them -- with claims like "This places him in the late Vedic period (1500 BCE to 500 BCE), and he has been called a Vedic sage.[3][4]" - that is indeed so brilliant that it requires you to inform what is 6th and 7th century BC (to justify your claims)!! Sigh!--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: Multiple reliable sources cited in the article place Kapila of Samkhya fame in the Vedic period. The article, before your first edit this month, already summarized "it is unclear which century he lived in". Your desire to do OR in this article and wikipedia in general are disruptive, your personal attacks tiresome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Lady, you sure are tiresome. I have no idea why you repeat or mention irrelevant things when already it is clear that 6th century BC is not the same thing as 7th century BC; nor are all sources saying the same thing for you to conclusively claim (Statement 1) "This places him in the late Vedic period (1500 BCE to 500 BCE), and he has been called a Vedic sage.". Your statement is intentionally ambiguous or misleading and it is POV-Pushing. Also, in the introduction, you claim (Statement 2) "Kapila of Samkhya fame is considered a Vedic sage" using the same sources again -- Guida Myrl Jackson-Laufer (a journal editor!), John Haldane (a scientist!) and Krishna Dronamraju (a scientist!) -- none who state a source for their claim of 6th century BC! Also wrote above Encyclopedia Britannica is acceptable although its latest edition is ambiguous with a question mark "Kapila, (flourished 550 bce?)". As for disruptive, I have not put back deleted content so far; nor have I changed anything without receiving a reply. You did. More so, you chose to write new statements 1 and 2; despite the dating being uncertain. So, please speak for yourself.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: Both 1998 and latest version of Encyclopedia Britannica call Kapila as a Vedic sage. All other cited sources, published by Oxford University Press etc do too. We summarize published WP:RS, and we rely on the peer review process and editorial oversight behind the WP:RS as both @Kautilya3 and @RexxS explained to you elsewhere. I can present you evidence, but that is not the purpose of this talk page. No OR in this article or elsewhere in wikipedia, and please do not use this talk page as a WP:FORUM to unlearn or share your confusion, wisdom and prejudices. Please use this talk page per WP:TALK. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Lady, there is a certain inability in you?? Why repeat yourself again. See this. Already said Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) is acceptable though the 2015 updated Encyclopedia Britannica puts a question mark "Kapila, (flourished 550 bce?)". Which is why I replaced your wonderful sources, John Haldane (a scientist!) and Krishna Dronamraju (a scientist!) with EB. But that was not to be. You put back Haldane and Dronamraju and bring in Guida Myrl Jackson-Laufer (a journal editor!) and construct a new statement with weasel words to claim (Statement 1) "This places him in the late Vedic period (1500 BCE to 500 BCE), and he has been called a Vedic sage". For statement 2 of claiming he was a vedic sage, I have no issues with you using any your wonderful sources of the editor and 2 scientists. And stop preaching! Learn to accept that your statement is 1 intentionally ambiguous or misleading, POV-pushing, and unnecessary when the immediate preceding statements already mention "While he pre-dates Buddha, it is unclear which century he lived in, with some suggesting 6th-century BCE. Others place him in the 7th century BCE."

Why is it so hard for you to just say "While he pre-dates Buddha, and often identified as a vedic sage[EB source], it is unclear which century he lived in, with suggestions varying from 6th-century BCE,[EB source] to 7th century BCE.[Lochtefeld][Herman]" and leave it there? Why do you need to make an additional statement, immediately thereafter saying - "This places him in the late Vedic period (1500 BCE to 500 BCE), and he has been called a Vedic sage"? What purpose does your additional statement serve?

Also the intro already says "Kapila of Samkhya fame is considered a Vedic sage, estimated to have lived in the 6th-century BCE, or the 7th-century BCE". So, what is the purpose of your additional statement again? BTW, the intro statement is also not OK. Considered by whom as vedic sage? Suggest changing this to more accurate EB representation of 'often identified' as this - "Kapila of Samkhya fame is often identified as a Vedic sage, estimated to have lived in the 6th-century BCE, or the 7th-century BCE" - since only some sources identify him as a vedic sage; and EB in itself in its latest edition is using a question mark.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: The question mark is after 550 BC, not after Vedic sage. Neither of the Encyclopedia Britannica versions, 1998 or 2015, state or support the conditional "often identified as a Vedic sage", they support "called a Vedic sage". The latest version article on Kapila in the Encyclopedia Britannica reads, "Kapila, Vedic sage. Written by: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica, Kapila, (flourished 550 bce?) Vedic sage who is..." The "550 bce?" simply means the year is uncertain, could be 600, or 500, or etc. The lead summarizes the main, per WP:LEAD, and what is in the lead should be in the main article as well. What happened to your "So, thanks and good luck to you. Bye." promise, after your hate language/attack against the Asians particularly the Indians therein, followed by the attack on Oxford University Press, @RexxS, etc above? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, wow! so you repeat yourself. This is about your additional sentence (marked in bold above) which is unnecessary, repetitive, intentionally ambiguous with weasel words and POV-pushing. Clear, now? BTW, read again (I did not attack Asians/Indians - infact I support them even more - gosh, lady, you sure have a problem! either in understanding/reading or in deliberately misconstruing!). AS for the Oxford Uni Press, I stand by my statement. Your man RexxS used the word "stfu" on a noticeboard (new highs for wiki language) - just pointing that out. As for byes, nope, I take that back. Not letting you get away with your nonsense this time.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Suggested changes and other texts

As discussed above, consider changing the intro to read as follows:

Kapila (Hindi: कपिल ऋषि) is a given name of different individuals in ancient and medieval Indian texts, of which the most well-known is the founder of the Samkhya school of Hindu philosophy. Kapila of Samkhya fame is often identified as a Vedic sage, estimated to have lived in the 6th-century BCE, or the 7th-century BCE.

Rishi Kapila is credited with authoring the influential Samkhya-sutra, in which aphoristic sutras present the dualistic philosophy of Samkhya. Kapila's influence on Buddha and Buddhism have long been the subject of scholarly studies.

Many historic personalities in Hinduism and Jainism, mythical figures, pilgrimage sites in Indian religion, as well as an ancient variety of cow went by the name Kapila.

Since even Max Muller does not identify him as a vedic sage, (see pages xxxviii-xli); you should also consider giving due weightage to the views of Max Muller and Chakravarti, who mention a historic personage as Kapila did not live at all but was later identified as such. So also for views of Chaturvedi who propositions the transformation of a possible female Kapila into a male Kapila. Consider adding this in the biography section as follows:

The name Kapila appears in many texts, and it is likely that these names refer to different people. The most famous reference is to the sage Kapila with his student Āsuri, who in the Indian tradition, are considered as the first masters of Sāṅkhya school of Hindu philosophy. While he pre-dates Buddha, and is often identified as a vedic sage, it is unclear which century he lived in, with suggestions varying from 6th-century BCE, to 7th century BCE.

Kapila is credited with authoring an influential sutra, called Samkhya-sutra (also called Kapila-sutra), which aphoristically presents the dualistic philosophy of Samkhya. These sutras were explained in another well studied text of Hinduism called the Samkhyakarika. Beyond the Samkhya theories, he appears in many dialogues of Hindu texts, such as in explaining and defending the principle of Ahimsa (non-violence) in the Mahabharata.

Chakravarti opines a historic personage as Kapila did not live at all, while Max Muller opines Hiranyagarbha Kapila of the vedas was distinct, and was later used to link to Kapila of Sankhya, to assign the authorship of Sankya system to Hiranyagarbha. Chaturvedi opines the transformation of the asura Kapila is associated with the transformation of the Samkhya from atheist to idealist, and suggests an early female Kapila was metamorphosed into the Kapila of Sankhya.

In case you have a problem with the last paragraph, you can add it under "Other descriptions". Is this OK for all? As Sarah Welch can see, have used her sources Haldane and Dronamraju to refer to vedic sage only, not for dating. Have used her source Guida Myrl Jackson-Laufer for dating. There is no need to repeat with the additional new sentence ("This places him in the late Vedic period (1500 BCE to 500 BCE), and he has been called a Vedic sage") as Sarah Welch has done for POV-pushing and constructing sentences the way she ahs done; as explained above. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

References

References

Comments

Disagree, for the reasons explained above. Max Muller source neither states "Kapila is not a Vedic scholar", nor states "Kapila is a Vedic scholar". The focus of Muller in the mentioned source is something different. It is OR to derive or conclude something new, just because an author is silent, makes no mention either way about something. In contrast, the article already has multiple sources, with embedded quotes, that call Kapila as a Vedic scholar. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Amsuman and Kapila.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

..

How did he died or is he still alive I want to know more since he's the founder of atheistm 950CMR (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

California

Could someone explain why it is that this article claims he was California? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:201:100:6A00:F11A:6831:4743:2E65 (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The Kapila sage built a Powerfull devi Idol

One of the greatest God in hindhu culture that is shree Bramaramba devi 2405:204:50A0:FB2B:0:0:1E0A:F0B0 (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)