Jump to content

Talk:Vaishnavism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Improper translation?

"was already well developed in the period of the Itihasas." This means: "...was already well developed in the period of the history." That makes no sense... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.89.252 (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Future improvements

If anyone has any practical ideas or comments on the possible future improvement of this article then please discuss them here. The Tilak section obviously needs sourcing, and probably shortening in size and the History section could do with expanding. Does anyone else have other comments? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The history section needs sources. There is a section in Gavin Flood's Hinduism, as well as a chapter in his edited Blackwell Companion to Hinduism by Gerard Colas. Sukumari Bhattacharji's The Indian Theogony has plenty of literary material on Vishnu and the various avataras, but hardly anything at all on Vaishnavism per se. There is also a problem with balance, because historically the Vaikhanasas and the Pancaratras played an important role in doctrinal development while becoming relatively unimportant later. And finally there is a problem with terminology: the word "cult" unfortunately has negative connotations, whereas NPOV-istically, Vaishnavism as a "religion" indeed developed out of a fusion of various "cults" (e.g. Vasudeva, Gopala, Narayana.) rudra (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Do I smell collaborative scholarship?
Sweet
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 10:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
And which sources do you find suitably fragrant? rudra (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Your probubly were the one that created and started this Vaishnava page, but,...you are NOT the web-master. According to the laws and guidelines of Wikipedia, we all have equal rein on the website. Is it just me or three people have already pointed out the blantant ISKON/Gaudiya slant that you've put on this page and have argued over it? Or, how you have taken out useful information conserning other Sampradayams in favor of yours? I think this matter should be taken to the Civil Liberties Union immediately. Wikipedia is doing nothing about it. I am STILL upset that the info I put about the Sri Sampradayam Tilak also symbolizing the ida, pingala and shushumna nadi's was taken out. Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 15:48, 3 Feb 2008 (UTC)

POV HEADER

Dear Swami's, after going to the Bhagavata purana article and clicking on both the Vaishnava theology and Gaudiya theology link, and looking at all three articles. There is such an ISKON/Gaudiya slant on not only this article, but, a number of articles relating to any thing Vaishnava. I believe that the "Vaishnava theology" article is just a spring-board for the ISKON/Gaudiya group. It should be strictly a no-frills article for ALL Vaishnava group. This article was written with an absolute ISKON slant, I am sorry to say. With all the qoutes from ISKON/Gaudiya books, listing books only ISKON uses and the section of Western scholars(One in particular is very Notorious)makes it very ISKON slanted, very slanted. In the next couple of day, with the request of Rudra, I will list all that is ISKON/Gaudiya Sampradayam. Until, I will leave the POV header. I will be contacting Wikipedia about the "group" slant that exist on a number of articles written within the next couple of days.Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 12:31, 23 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)
I have removed the POV head. I think the article is pretty much open to all groups of vaishnavism now..Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 02:00, 04 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)

POV REMOVAL

Until the absolute ISKON slant on this article is dealt with, I will make sure that the POV header STAYS ON. I will check EVERY DAY, to see if it is still on. And, I will, if necessary, re-type it back on the article. Every time! I will not stop, until the ISKON bias and slant to this article is dealt with and changed. When I have the time; I will go through and list every thing that is blatantly ISKON, insuring that this is a non-bias,inclusive Vaishnava article. Where ALL Vaishnava groups are shown, without any ISKON slant..Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 21:45, 24 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)


I have removed the POV head. I think the article is pretty much open to all groups of vaishnavism now..Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 02:00, 04 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)

Needed changes for a non-bias article

With Rudra's request. I am listing all that is ISKON on this article. If we can negotiate and talk about changes, it would be helpful.
  1. The first paragraph of article/third sentence: It lists the "Isha Upanishad". The ISKON/Gaudiya group ONLY follow this Upanishad. But, in the Sri Sampradayam, the first Vaishnava Sampradayam, believes and follows the "Principle 11 Upanishads" with the Narayana and MahaNarayana upanishads.
  2. The first paragraph of article/third sentence: It does not list the original four Vedas. Sri Sampradayam follows strictly the Original four Vedas. The reason that it wasnt listed is because the ISKON/Gaudiya does not follow the four vedas, because they think it is "karma-kanda" and, they are above them. Vaishnavas follow ALL of the original Shastra.
  3. The first paragraph of article/third sentence: The Padma Purana should be added to list a long side the Vishnu and Bhagavata Purana. Sri Sampradayam follows not only these Main Sattvic Purana but, ALL of the Sattvic Puranas.
  4. The "Worship" section/First sentence: "Within their worship Vaishnava devotees will always see themselves as (at least partially) separate or distinct from their lord, Vishnu"....I am sorry, but, this is a Dwaita Saddanta belief of Madhvacharya. This not the Visishta-adwaita Saddanta the was espoused by Ramanujacharya and The Sri Sampradayam. A simple Visishta-adwaita sentence should be added after this dwaita sentence.
  5. The "Vaishnava Upanishads" section: I am sorry to say this, but, this section is a total ISKON/Gaudiya speculation and concoction. As stated before, Sri Sampradayam Vaishvanas follow all of the Main Upanishads with the Narayana and Maha-Narayana Upanishads. In fact, we follow All Shastras; the four Vedas, the main Upanishads, the Dharma Shastra (Manu Samhita), The Ramayana, the Mahabarata, The Bhagavad-gita, the Vedanta-sutras, the Sri Bhashya, the Sattvic Puranas and etc.
  6. The Western Scholar section: listing absolutely ISKON authors and gurus(some of them Notorious); and not listing non-ISKON Scholars and Pandits, shows the biasness of the article and that it is a spring-board for ISKON/Gaudiya. Either the whole section should be taken out or heavy modification to that section should take place. Wikipedia should be informed about the history of the people listed on this section. And, they should decide weither they can list some of the people on it.

If there can be some modifications to the things that were listed, it would be very helpful. If I dont hear any responses within the next 7 days, I will modify and re-edit these sections for a more non-bias stance to the article. If the needed changes do not appear and there is still a ISKON/Gaudiya resistance, I WILL be taking this to the ACLU here in Los Angeles and then to Wikipedia...Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 21:45, 24 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)

Thank you very much for this list of specifics. To keep the discussion focused, I propose creating new sections topically. I'll do so now, according to my take of what the separate issues are, but feel free to make changes. rudra (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere at last! Based on this we may even be able to co-operate on the article? Shock Horror! Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Canonical Texts

This is with respect to points 1-3 above (Lead/Third sentence).

  • We need a list of canonical texts. If the list is too large, we may have to shorten the sentence to a non-specific "Its beliefs and practices (known as Bhakti Yoga, or Bhakti), are based largely on Vedic and Puranic texts" and leave the details to elsewhere in the article. It would be useful, however, if we could agree on a short (but not complete!) list to give as examples, on which all sampradayas would agree.
  • That said, I'm somewhat concerned about the "vedic" nature of "beliefs and practices". This, in my view, is largely dogma rather than fact. (Interestingly enough, the Isa Upanishad is mukhya, which would make it more "vedic" than either the Narayana or the Mahanarayana, although the latter could have some claim by being the 10th book of the Taittiriya Aranyaka). If the dogma is to be insisted upon, I would suggest replacing the fragment "Vedic and Puranic texts" with "the Vedas and Puranic texts". rudra (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
O.K. I think it is a good idea! This is the kind of thing we should have been doing! Yes, I totally agree! ..Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 12:35, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)
It makes sense to me to expand the list where relevant. We could also potentially have an additional section which covered this entire topic of canonical texts? Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Worship

This is with respect to Zeuspitar's point #4 above. (Dvaita versus Visishtadvaita). Isn't there even more to this, such as Tenkalai vs Vadakalai? (e.g. the "baby monkey" vs "kitten" analogies) If we can't reach a consensus on a proper formulation of how Vaishnavas see themselves w.r.t Vishnu, it may be better to simply remove this sentence (it isn't really expanded upon in what follows, anyway.) rudra (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

With respects to both the Tenkakai and Vadakalai, we both beleive in the Visishta-adwaita. The "Baby monkey and kitten" principle is about how Vishnu treats His devotee in regards to means of Salvation. Thats all. And the minor, minor differences in both sub-sects of Sri Sam. are not even an issue any more. But, 2 to 4 hundred years ago..it was big.Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 12:33, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)
A good example of the Vasishta-adwaita, is the Ocean and the bubbles. The Ocean is Narayana and the bubbles are the jiva-atmas. But, in actuality, the bubbles, whole ocean, the wave are all Narayana. The Narayana suktam (especially this suktam) and upanishad really describes the this Principle. Another example is the jiva-atma and the body are just covering to Narayana. Vishnu is in the Soul and the soul is in the body. But, in actuality, it is all Narayana. the kitten and monkey principle are ideas of how Narayana with uplift and save the jiva-atma...it deals with how Vishnu saves the souls. The Va-ad. deals with the nature of Vishnu, while the kitten/monkey deals with ideas of salvation. I hope that this is some how helpful. ..Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 01:00, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)
Still, in all these examples (even the ocean & bubble) there is a distinction between Vishnu and the jiva. It is significantly different than the total monist approach, which is what the sentence is getting at. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, what the Vas.Ad. is trying to say is that there is a seeming distinction at certain level , but, ultimately....there is ONLY Narayana. Please remember, Narayana means "the supreme man that is the foundation of everyone and everything"...this is a lose tranlation. With the example of the ocean and bubbles...their Both water, there is only the ocean. Regardless of the the distiction of the waves or bubbles. It is still the water and the whole ocean itself. There is seeming difference, but, at the core, it is Narayana. Hence the Vashishta-adwaita philosophy. The Adwaita people took and chose the verses that fit into their philosophic veiw. And, thats what Madhvacharya and others did after Ramanujacharya left the planet also. There are alot of Adwaitic verses all over the vedic scriptures...yes. But, what about the ones that espouse the opposite. And, you can not just ignore the so-called adwaitic verses or cast aside whole Upanishadic texts because it has alot of adwaitic verses too. Thats where Vashishta-adwaita comes in. It accepts All of the Vedic, Upanishadic and etc. claim of both the Adwaitic and Dwaitic. It is all about what All of the Vedic scriptures say. You can not pick and choose in them. thats what the Adwaitics did before and around Ramanujacharya and others. And, thats what happened after Ramanujacharya passed on, with the dwaita people. They came in chosed the verses that they thought was correct about their particular brake-off group belief. After Madhavacharya left the planet...how many other spin-off philosophies came in?...with each of the new sampradayams and brake-off sampradayams from them...sorry to say. For Vaishnavas...originally, it is the Vedically, Upanishadically backed Vashishta-Adwaita principle which Yamunacharya, devotees before Him and Ramanujacharya all taught that should be upheld. And, Lets not forget, One of the Main facets of the Vashi. Adwai. is that the Super Soul/Vishnu is WITHIN...the Soul, and the Soul within the body. And, that why I follow Vashi.Adwai. and Ramanujacharya, because they both prove my spiritual experiences within mediation (that God is WITHIN the Soul and the soul is a linked PART of God. That God is the foundation of our being. Not this God sitting next to the soul stuff that ISKON/Gaudiya believes) and that it accepts and IS accepted withing All of the Vedic scriptures. The Vashi.Adwai. is back totally by Shastra and Sadhu...Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 16:13, 03 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.134.156 (talk)

Upanishads

Zeuspitar's point#5. (and #1 to some extent)

  • I'm somewhat puzzled by "11 principal" Upanishads. Only 10 are mukhya.
  • The 13 listed need to be sourced. I think it's more than an ISKCON "concoction", anyway.
  • The section in this article is merely a spin-off of the Muktika Upanishad article. We can do away with it if we develop a proper section on canonical texts (i.e. not just upanishads.) rudra (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure!..Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 12:55, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)

Okay, this business of "13 Vaishnava upanishads" seems to be a modern invention. This link claims that it's due to one Sri Ramachandrendra of the Kanchi mutt. I don't know of a good way to verify this. For now, the section looks dubious, and should probably be replaced with a proper section on classes of canonical texts. rudra (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with replacing it with a better section. I'm not sure where the information comes from either, and have never come across it within Gaudiya Vaishnavism? Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

An interesting data point is the section by MA Mehendale in HCIP Vol.1., p.471ff ("Language and Literature" in The Age of the Upanishads and Sutras). He takes the view of historical development and categorizes Upanishads as follows:

  • Earliest stage, prose works integrated into Brahmanas/Aranyakas: Aitareya, Kausitaki, Taittiriya, Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya and Kena.
  • Pre-Buddhistic, metrical: Katha, Svetasvatara, Mahanarayana, Isa, Mundaka, Prasna
  • Post-Buddhistic, but arguably "vedic": Maitrayaniya, Mandukya.
  • The rest of the corpus, he says, "have very little connection to the Veda. Some of them contain very little that may be called philosophical, and some are more akin to the Puranas and the Tantras than to the Veda. According to their purpose and contents the non-Vedic Upanishads may be divided into six categories: (1) such as present Vedanta doctrines, (2) those which teach Yoga, (3) those extolling the ascetic life, (4) those which glorify Vishnu as the highest deity, (5) those which give the same position to Siva, and (6) the Upanishads of the Saktas and other minor sects."
  • So, it appears that there is some older tradition of categorizing the Upanishads, but Mehandale doesn't give details or cite a source. rudra (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Western Scholars

Zeuspitar's point#6. Can we get a list of scholars who are not Gaudiya/ISKCON? Alternately, are there any specific names you would remove as not being notable enough outside Gaudiya/ISKCON circles? rudra (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure! I will get them within the next couple of days ..Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 12:55, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)
Again, I agree with expanding the list. I don't have the information or time to do this myself. I removed some names a few days ago, of persons who I deemed as less notable than the others. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

There is also one general point to keep in mind here. We need reliable sources. This is because Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If much of the information in the article has been culled from Gaudiya sources only, then we need not only sources from other sampradayas, but also, more importantly, secondary or tertiary sources that identify the important points for us to cite. See this thread for a discussion. rudra (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree! It would be nice if other Vaishnava groups and scholars or even just plain Hindu pandits that could help with this and other articles in wikipedia, for verification purposes. It would be nice if there was a non-bias, all-encompassing group of pandits and researchers from various parts of the Hindu community that are appointed just for this task.I will be contacting some school/brahmachari trained indian pandit/swamis this week, and find others within the hindu community that could help with this, Vaishnava and non-vaish. I am very glad that there is this wonderful open discussion and non-bias action...Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 12:55, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)
We ideally need published texts in English language by scholars of Vaishnavism, or by Vaishnavas who are also scholars. But these are relatively rare in the west. More sources would be good. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Walker, The Hindu World has this bibliography for his entry on "Vaishnavism":

  • SK Aiyangar, Early History of Vaishnavism in South India, Madras 1920
  • RG Bhandarkar, Vaishnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems, Strassburg 1913
  • SK De, Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources, Calcutta 1942
  • WS Deming, Ramdas and the Ramdasis, Calcutta 1928
  • J Gonda, Early Aspects of Vaishnavism, Utrecht 1957
  • AP Karmarkar, Mystic Teachings of the Haridasas of Karnataka, Dharwar 1939
  • GN Mallik, The Philosophy of the Vaishnava Religion, 1927
  • T Rajagopalachariar, Vaishnava Reformers of India, Madras 1909
  • TAG Rao, History of the Sri-Vaishnavas, Madras 1923
  • HC Raychaudhuri, Materials for the Study of the Early History of the Vaishnava Sect, Calcutta 1936

This looks somewhat dated, and oriented towards the history. rudra (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Krishna article and avatar discussion

There is a discussion on Krishna's status as avatar at Krishna and Vishnu avatar discussion. Any comments you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Ism, I noticed that you added a citation needed tag to the Etymology section. Can you please clarify what part you think is disputable, (1) the etymolgy itself, vaishnava + ism, or (2) the meaning of vaishnava ? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just believe that the statement, "The term Vaishnavism is an English formation obtained by attaching the suffix -ism to Sanskrit Vaishnava (IAST: vaiṣṇava), which is the vriddhi form of Vishnu meaning belonging to, or derived from Vishnu," requires some type of citation that meets the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that is the least problematic statement in the whole page :) ... but adding reference is always useful. I'll find and add in the next few days as I edit and expand the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I didn't mean to be picky, I believe that a source should be cited though and a fact check tag should follow an unreferenced comment. It's always good to have a reference so that when a person looks up an article they have a source to verify the statement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I have added OED as the reference. Abecedare (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Improvements on Vaishnava page

Thanks to every one who made the recent changes to the Vaishnava page. It is alot better than it was before!! I think it is neutral to all Sampradayams and cults of Vaishnavism. It gives a very informative,un-bias account of Vaishnavism to the public. The page looks GREAT. And,I want thank every one for helping to keep free from any "group" or cult slant. I hope that we all can keep an eye out to keep it that way. Love and Namaskar. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusion over opening lines of article

The starting line states that it is monothestic but not exclusive. Also Krishna ,Vishnu ,Narayana and Vasudeva are worshipped as supreme forms of God. Pardon me ,maybe my understanding of the English language is of primary level and same is or must be the case with majority of visitors on Wiki, but these opening lines confuse me a lot. According to the dictionary i have, Monotheism is the belief that there is a single God. Now who is the God here. Is it Krishna or Vishnu or both or simultaneous. A bit confusing for me. If they are the forms of god, then who is God. Is it Krishna? or Vishnu? If it is Krishna then why he has a form known as another Krishna? Are there two Krishnas? Is it that for some it is Krishna and for others Vishnu? Then for those for whom it is only Krishna , what is Vishnu for them? Are they all one or different? If they are all gods(i think there are twelve avtaars ,thats all i know though), then shouldn't Pantheism be the right word?I am going haywire thinking about it. Though i know that Krishna and Vishnu are worshipped ,but my knowledge about Hinduism is vague. And believe me, this intro confuses me. If it's beliefs are associated with Vedas ,then what do vedas say about God?A Hindu might understand it, but a non-Hindu gets confused by opening lines (maybe a scholar does not). If a devout Hindu gets upset at my inquiry, then please forgive me and bear my comments and enlighten me on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.141.26 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that author of the above question probably aware, that a very simmilar line of questioning is very often put to adherents of Christian traditions in many places, inclusive of India, or Pune, by their counterparts in Islam. Is it one god or is it three gods and if its three, it must be that there is no one god, therefor Christianity is a polytheism. However despite this apparent misunderstanding Vaishnavism is a monotheistic tradition with history of it spanning longer then any other monotheistic tradition. There are unlimited avataras of Vishnu, Krishna or Narayana (depending on tradition you belong to) and most of Vaishnavas accept all of them as the forms of God. Just as in Christian tradition god appeared in a form of fire to Jacob (thats all I know) - similarly in Vaishnavism, Vishnu appears in many forms on this earth and protects his devotees. Vedas praise Vishnu, Panacaratra praises Vasudeva, Upanishads praise Narayana and Bhagavata Purana praises Krishna as the original, but all are forms of one Supreme Lord, who has many names and forms. Wikidās ॐ 21:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


What are you talking about...the bhagavata purana praises Krishna?! It just states that he is svayam bhagavan?....where does this Wikidas get his information?...he is really off on alot of things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.100.141 (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a little used word in the English language: triune.
All for one and one for all!
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 11:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

All that we see or seem...

The following sentence was extracted from this article:

Another distinguishing feature of the Vaishnava teachings, is that God (Krishna and/or Vishnu) "is a real person and His variegated creation is also real".

I contest "creation" being the domain of Vishnu. Where is Creationism to be found in the literature of the various schools as the principal domain of Vishnu and the procession of avatars? Who, if any 'person' created the Ocean of Milk? Moreover, I take exception to "real", Vishnu is the Dreaming Lord who dreams reality, reality is the 'dream' of Vishnu. 'Reality' is a particularly loaded term. For many Vaishnavas, Mahamaya is Vishnu's devotee yes? As an aside, the following are etymon kindred: real, reality, realty, realm, regal, weal, wheel, reel, wealth. I would appreciate some discussion and exploration of the great dreaming of Vishnu as the fabric of reality.

I would also like to tender the respectful opinion that exclusively employing the quotations of Bhaktivedanta Swami's translation of the Gita is comparable to solely employing quotations of the King James version of the Bible, though not as poetic. This is unsound and should be repaired.

Thanxta svaha
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 11:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Vishnuism Merge

  • Merge and Redirect Vishnuism to Vaishnavism as before : challenging the referenced "Vishnuism is one of the branches of Vaishnavism". This is a minority view, if not an OR on the part of author referenced or misinterpretation by wiki-author. Free dictionary treats Vishnuism as a synonym of Vaishnavism.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Checked the ref Aspects of Early Visnuism By J. Gonda, but could find any ref for "Vishnuism is one of the branches of Vaishnavism", the author does not say it. OR on part on the wiki-author.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Also does Britannia [1]. So do the foll books [2] ,[3]--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand Britannia, which reffered in Vishnuism explicitly states Vishnuism as Vaishnavism. How can the author ignore this when refering? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Create a section of the Vishnuism article in this article. Its a specific concept that is only sometimes identified with Vaishnavism. See Vishnuism for the variety of views. WP:SS section summary will do. Same with Krishnaism that is also sometimes treated as part of Vaishnavism. Wikidās ॐ 11:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Redtiger here. Merge and Redirect Vishnuism to Vaishnavism since they are both synonyms just like Krishnaism and Gaudiya Vaishnavism are synonyms. Shivaism and Shaivism are also synonyms. The sources speak for themselves. GizzaDiscuss © 07:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect done.Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a sign of ignorance to assume that Krishnaism and Gaudiya Vaishnavism are synonyms. I guess person who suggests something like that just does not want to read material provided in respected articles. Vishnuism is clearly a branch of Vaishnavism and since there are academic sources that state it clearly, this should be the case. If sources found to suggest the opposite, they can be added to create a neutral view on the subject. Wikidās ॐ 11:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

For further discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishnuism.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishnuism, as per the admin's advice, the merge and redirect discussion should be carried here.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Copy of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishnuism

Separate article as a sub-article to Vaishnavism was considered for merging into a section of Vaishnavism. Sufficient references given for a separate article. Consensus required as to deletion and re-direct with loss of references and material. Wikidās ॐ 12:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Three options are being proposed

:# Merge - create a subsection that retains all material of this article in Vaishnavism article

# Delete - remove article as not notable

:# Part-merge - retain the article as a sub-article of Vaishnavism, (current situation) --Wikidās ॐ 12:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

While Vishnuism is often used as a replacement word of Vaishnavism, it is a sub-class to Vaishnavism, as it refers to a category of worshipers who suppose that Vishnu worship is higher then worship of Rama or Krishna within Vaishnavism. It is therefore a sub-branch of Vaishnavism. Other two sub branches are identified as (for example in Telugu) - as the "branches of Vaishnavism" — the Rama cult and the Krishna cult. Two distinct cults of Rama and Krishna are sub branches also see: p.1197
Sri Vaishnavism is clearly a form of Vishnuism, and they are known as followers of Ramanujacharya. However followers of Vallabha, Nimbarka and Chaitanya are of Krishnaism (see: Complete list of sources for the subject:Wikipedia:WikiProject Krishnaism/Bibilography) - another sub-branch. Followers of Ramananda are called Ramandandis and are specifically focused on Rama worship as the highest form of worship. Thus they are also a separate branch. These are orthodox branches of Vaishnavism. Un-orthodox branches are for example tantric vaishnava schools.
Vaishnavism is only sometimes equated to Vishnuism because of linguistics, however first step in evolution of Vaishnavism was worship of Krishna and identification of him with minor vedic deity VishnuThe History and Culture of the Indian People/HARDY, Friedhelm E.: Krsnaism. In: The Encyclopedia of Religion 8 (Ed. Mircea Eliade) (1987)387/2 - 392/1/ Also see: Page 269-270 (G. Widengren (1997). Historia Religionum: Handbook for the History of Religions - Religions of the Present. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, ISBN 90-04-02598-7),(KLOSTERMAIER, Klaus K. (2005). A Survey of Hinduism. State University of New York Press; 3 edition, p.206. ISBN 0791470814)
Just because some dictionary sources identify it as one we are obliged to maintain NPOV in this and not to present views that are only based on Tertiary sources. Please see PSTS. Our policies do not allow to proclaim one version or sects' view a definition to all other, as we have to maintain neutral point of view, where the definition has to account for many branches of Vaishnavism and definition of each branch without bias. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources, not just primary and certainly not on tertiary sources.
Probably the best secondary sources that clearly establishes the difference of the different sub-branches of Vaishnavism are:
Jan GONDA Vaisnavism and Saivism and Minor Religious Systems
Jan GONDA The Concept of personal god
RG BHANDARKAR, Vaishnavism and Saivism, Varanasi, 1965
MATCHETT, Freda: Krsna, Lord or Avatara? The relationship between Krsna and Visnu in the context of the avatara myth as presented by the Harivamsa, the Visnupurana and the Bhagavatapurana. (Curzon Studies in Asian Religion). Richmond 2001
Based on this and to comply with neutral point of view all schools of Vaishnavism (ie Rama/Krishna/Vishnu centered traditions) should be summarized in one article of Vaishnavism (summary style) and should have their respective sections without one single bias.
--17:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments by --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13
20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • A Survey of Hinduism By Klostermaier says that the first Vishnu was worshiped as Vasudeva Krishna and Narayana, but does not say "Vaishnavism is only sometimes equated to Vishnuism", this may be OR or a misinterpretation of the text.
  • I think Britannica is a well-respected encyclopedia, quoted in many wiki articles. We can't just ignore it? In form, my dear friend Wikidas who is the major contributor to Vishnuism has used Britannica as a reference in the article. Quoting from Britannica:

Vaishnavism: Hindu sect also called Vishnuism, or Viṣṇuism, Sanskrit Vaiṣṇavism, Main: worship of the god Vishnu and of his incarnations, principally as Rāma and as Krishna. It is one of the major forms of modern Hinduism—with Śaivism and Shaktism (Śāktism).

  • I request my friend Wikidas to please give the page nos. in Gonda, J. (1993). Aspects of Early Visnuism. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., which the articles first ref that explicitly says "Vishnuism is one of the branches of Vaishnavism". Also, if possible, those in Vaisnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems By Ramkrishna G. Bhandarkar. Thanks.
  • Merge: Per Redtigerxyz. There are numberous sources that show that Vishnuism and Vaishnavism refer to the same thing; it is the worship of Vishnu as the Supreme God. Krishnaism or Gaudiya Vaishnavism is just a sub-sect which swaps Vishnu with Krishna just like the many sub-sects of Vaishanvism. GizzaDiscuss © 01:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Vaishnavism article, since it is, at most, a part of Vaishnavism. ~ priyanath talk 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - the Gonda source clearly establishing Early Vishnuism as a separate notable subject mater. It further points out to the differences in the associated concepts how it evolved from being centered on Vishnu to early references to a different type of worship of Vishnu-Kṛṣṇa and yet again (p. 163) ( Gonda, J. (1993) (first ed. 1969). Aspects of Early Visnuism. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., ) Whereas there are misconceptions on the subject and a common ignorance of the matter he clearly points out as to amalgamation of the other traditions with Vishnuism, such as Krishnaism and Ramaism of Bhagavatism. The notion and the source on the early Vishnuism such as Gondas clearly defined a need of a separate subject of an article. Wikidās ॐ 10:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The same page talks of merging of the other traditions "IN" Vishnuism. This means, now Krishnaism and Ramaism is a subset of Vishnuism, and NOT Vishnuism, Krishnaism and Ramaism merging into Vaishnaism. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Amalgamation is not the merging. ( Gonda does say merging in, amagalmation is often used to describe earlier cults of Gopala and Vaasudeva into Bhagavatism) Few traditions according to literary sources amalgamated within Bhagavatism, prior to merging in Early Vishnuism, therefore Vishnuism as entity is a valid entity and is a sub -branch of what is common version of Vishuism and existed independently from others forming current Vaishnavism.Wikidās ॐ 14:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Gonda uses "merge".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Gonda does not use the word Vaisnavism as well. Even in this book, he is talking about early Visnuism. Lets look for a replacement from other reliable source. as for example Gavin Flood also is using merging as "In its early stages, Vaisnavism represents the merging of the religions of a number of different social groupings from both north and south India." He clearly states that Vishnu become 'fused' with other, originally independent deities. An Introduction to Hinduism Flood p 117. That means that there is Vishnuism as a historical fact that is different from what today is represented by Vaishnavism, that is a merge of many traditions. Wikidās ॐ 14:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Many books just use Vishnuism and Shivaism , and do not use Vaishnavism and Shaivism [8].Why should Gonda use Vaisnavism, if Vishnuism is being used for consistency purposes?Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If we trust "Gonda does not use the word Vaisnavism", then how was the book used to support the statement "Vishnuism is one of the branches of Vaishnavism", the first statement in the Vishnuism article, Isn't that a contradiction? This proves clear OR or misinterptretation.Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It is clearly because he is talking about EARLY Vishnuism, not about Vaishnavism existing that does not fit or is not covered by the definition. Not only that even at historic times, Vishnuism was not a synonym of all other groups that merged into it at an early stage, and it is not the same as the groups that are called Vaishnavism(s) now. I guess the key to the answer is that Historic Visnuism is different to what is now commonly called Vaishnavism. Wikidās ॐ 15:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As this is a hair splitting exercise, I think that both sides of the argument must provide more reliable sources to back up their claims. Of course though, I always want more reliable sources to back up claims. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Move and keep. After looking over the above sources, it is absolutely clear from sources that Vishnuism is considered a separate tradition, that historically and later on became an umbrella or one merged tradition. However it should be moved to Historical Vishnuism as per Gonda, J. (1993) (first ed. 1969) Aspects of Early Visnuism. Article has to be expanded and sourced to reflect this.Wikidās ॐ 07:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Images of Indian Goddesses: Myths, Meanings and Models By Madhu Bazaz Wangu] explicitly tells us to refer to it to compare Vaishnavism and Shaivism. Why would the author do so if Vishnuism and Vaishnavism are different.

The Arts of Nepal By Pratapaditya Pal] calls the sect Vishnuism, but uses Vaishnava for the follower, a word which used for Vaishnavism.

Towards a Christian Pastoral Approach to Cambodian Culture By Gerard Ravasco p.56] mentions Vaishnavism and lists the alternate spellings, one being Vishnuism as a footnote. p.109. For consistency, authors seem to use 1 spelling "Vaishnavism" or "vishnuism". Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical or early Vishnuism is different to what now is called Vaishnavism as in Sri Vaishnavsim, Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Etc Wikidās ॐ 15:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment It's abundantly clear from many reliable sources provided above that Vishnuism is an alternate term for Vaishnavism, or possibly an earlier term for Vaishnavism, but not something completely different. This should be a simple redirect. ~ priyanath talk 20:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Are there any sources for an individual Vishnuism article other than Gonda? If there are other sources, please do provide them. As is, this is boardering on interpreting sources. I can understand Wikidas' arguements above, but they lack multiple reliable sources. Also, the weight of Redtigerxyz's reliable sources is heavy. Concerning Vishnuism, are there other sources? If not, this page should be merged with Vaishnavism. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


  • Another Source Equating Vishnuism and Vaishnavism

Gnosis: A New Translation with Selected Letters (2006) by Frithjof Schuon

"Vishnuism, or Vaishnavism, is a theistic sect of the Hindu religion whose members worship the God Vishnu as the Supreme Deity" p. 154 ~ priyanath talk 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the case is complicated by the fact that often modern Vaishnavism term is translated as Vishnuism, however I will bring up references clearly indicating that Vishnuism (as worship of Vishnu) became part of what is now Vaishnavism, thus supporting my conclusion that it is to be moved to Historical Vishnuism. I will clean up the article in the meantime. Wikidās ॐ 11:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy ENDS.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical Vishnuism encompasses the history of Vishnuism, but Vishnuism is Vaishnavism so was redirected to Vaishnavism, as per sources stated in the discussion above and 3 Merge and redirect votes.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Principle branches section

This section is really confusing. As I was copyediting the article, I renamed the section, but after rereading the entire article, I wonder whether that change is correct. At different places in the article vishnu-centered and krishna-centered beliefs are contrasted, with the former being the seminal definition of vaishnavism. In this section, that distinction becomes as clear as mud. If there is a difference of opinion whether vishnu-centered beliefs are a prerequisite, then this should be made clear thoughout the article. Vontrotta (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Just an additional thought, this section seems redundant, except for the confusion, and I was tempted just to delete it altogether. Vontrotta (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the consensus is that at a point in history Kṛṣṇa centered tradition amalgamated into Viṣṇu or Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa centered traditions. It is the view expressed by J Gonda, G Flood etc - most prominent academics etc., There is therefore a need to read over and make sure that just as Hinduism itself, Vaishnavism is shown as an umbrella to a number of traditions Vishnuism, Krishnaism, Rama bhakti etc., rather then the single defined tradition with single principle belief or 'seminal definition'. Wikidās ॐ 13:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The section also misinterpretations "Historic Vishnuism is considered to be one of the branches along with Ramaism, Bhagavatism and Krishnaism amalgamated in Vaishnavism,", the ref [9]

reads "that the very identifications of Krsna and Rama with Visnu, this very merging of Bhagavatism etc. IN Visnuism", then how come "Historic Vishnuism is considered to be one of the branches", if all branches where merged into it?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical Vishnuism merge

  • Do you people know that Vaishnava....means "Vishnu worshipper"? The so-called "Krishna worshippers" didnt come much later until the 15th century. Where are you people getting this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.220.82 (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Some reliable sources supporting the fact that Vaisnavism is Monotheism

Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics

(Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Part 24: V. 24 - Page 571)by James Hastings, John Alexander Selbie, Louis Herbert Gray ,1922

Page 571

Hindu Philosophy - Page 18

by Theos Bernard

Indian Buddhism - Page 510by Anthony Kennedy Warder

Religious Movements in South Asia 600-1800 - Page 304by David N. Lorenzen - 2004 - 380 pages

Monier- Williams now described the Vaishnava faith (identified with bhakti) as a monotheism.

Historia Religionum: Handbook for the History of Religions - Page 299

by C. J. Bleeker, G. Widengren - 1971

Any further POV pushing will be blocked as disruptive. Wikidās ॐ 19:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


                • These links do not work.

The pot is calling the kettle black. It is unsupported POV to suggest the denomination of an inclusively pantheistic worldview is somehow exclusively monotheistic. It is a contradiction of terminology. --71.104.220.82 (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC) WP:sockpuppet of User:Melchiord (talk)

You opinion is not very wise is it? Just because you can not use GoogleBooks does not make you very smart too. So far you are coming here and disrupting an established article with a history of consensus for many editors. You probably can not conceive that in Hinduism you can have monism, polytheism and monotheism living side by side with atheism for last 4 thousand years without cutting each others necks. But what a heck, lets block you.. Wikidās ॐ


In a pantheistic worldview like Hinduism, what appears polytheistic is pantheistic. What appears atheistic is pantheistic. What appears monotheistic is pantheistic.

Pantheism is like the constitution is to polytheism/monism's legislation. The pantheistic view ultimately trumps the others due it's very nature. For example, Buddhism is often called an atheistic religion, but has a pantheistic worldview.

Whether or not there is consensus amongst Wiki editors doesn't negate the internal contradictions and the fact that the article is contradicting known facts about Hebrew, as well as accepted sociological and theological terms.

Even the phrase delineating "but is not exclusive" highlights what I'm saying. The article is self contradictory.--71.104.220.82 (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC) WP:sockpuppet of User:Melchiord (talk)

Thank God proper sources do not support your speculations. There is nothing wrong with contradictions, there are ways to address them, but please keep as close as possible to the sources, you have been already warned for editwarring and is about to break WP:3RR. Be careful and do sign you post, this is talk page, and you can pour you speculations here as much as you like, but keep it focused and DO SIGN YOUR POST, its annoying when you do not do it. Wikidās ॐ

Factual incorrection and internal contradictions

This article is a joke.

  1. 1. It is incorrectly describing "Yahweh" as a word for God. It is a NAME or the Hebrew God and means "I Am". Elohim, which means "most high" is a closer term. Suggesting "Yahweh" means God, is like suggesting David, is Hebrew for "King", or "Muhammad" means "prophet" in Arabic.

"Allah" by contrast is the Arabic word for God. "Theos" is the Greek word for God, and is used in the Greek bible for example.

  1. 2. Vaishnavism is acknowledged in the article as a Hindu denomination, and even has listed a belief in reincarnation.

Reincarnation belief is a central tenet in a pantheistic worldview. As such, Vaishavism, by virtue of the reincarnation belief alone, is a pantheistic worldview. The article acknowledges the difference between Vaishnavis, by suggesting it is not "exclusive". But that is what monotheism is: An exclusive worldview.

This is inarguably acknowledged the world over, and demonstrated in the creeds of billions of Christian churches and Islam and Judaism. The Wiki article flies in the face of common sense and accepted understanding and is attempting to redefine "monotheism" to suit someones weird agenda.

Additionally the setup is that Wikipedia ascribes more weight to initial posters rather than ones correcting errors such as this. That I had to make the edits 4 times, and write this is ridiculous.

Get it together Wikipedia, because it is the encyclopedia that suffers when issues like this take place. http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Religions-Great-Wisdom-Traditions/dp/0062508113 --71.104.220.82 talk here as well(talk) 09:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC) WP:sockpuppet of User:Melchiord (talk)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaishnavism/Archive_2&oldid=1045381226"