Talk:Vallabha

---

Untitled

Recommend against merging. "Vallabh Acharya" not objective as "Vallabhacharaya" is.

Vishnuswami

I read somewhere that VIshnuswami and Vallabhacharya were two different people and currently Vishnuswami redirects to Vallabhacharya. Could someone say something more about it? Kkrystian (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Vishnuswami was the founder acharya of the Rudra Sampradaya, whereas Vallabhacharya is the most prominent teacher within that sampradaya in more 'recent' times. I found this link: from indiadivine. In which case Vishnuswami should really be an article in itself rather than a redirect to here. Well spotted. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I will add this information to the page to have consistent picture as far as redirect. Wikidās ॐ 21:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

resolved

Wikidās ॐ 09:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/chhattisgarh workgroup Addition

{{WP India}} with chhattisgarh workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Chhattisgarh or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 11:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Champaranya in East Champaran Bihar.

There is a reference, that Vallabhacharya was born in Champaranya. The place mentioned is now called Champaran and it is part of East Champaran in Bihar. However, here it is mentioned that Champaranya is in Chattisgarh. I doubt the veracity of the fact. Secondly, Chattisgarh is totally towards the south of Bihar where as the pilgrimage was undertaken to Vaishali region. I am just browsing it and after counter checking the facts, I will myself correct.

In light of above mentioned argument, it should not be put under Chattisgarh section. Sumir sumir sharma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma (talk • contribs) 14:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

---

From the article:

"He is widely considered as the last of the four great Vaishnava Acharyas who established the various Vaishnava schools of thought based on Vedantic philosophy, the other three (preceding him) being Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya and Nimbarkacharya."

It seems that the author of this article has never heard of Sri Caitanya and Gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya. 94.253.141.205 (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Vallabha Acharya → Vallabha – Per WP:HONORIFICS, Acharya is a honorific, his name is usually not spelled with a space in between the name, sources present in the article name it as Vallabha or Vallabhacharya, Britannica has its article at Vallabha. South Indian Geek (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support As per nominator. See also, Ramanuja (Ramanujacharya), Drona (Dronacharya), et al.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support See this chart for relative use of the two terms in sources. Additionally, beyond the Britannica source mentioned by nominator, please see this tertiary source. Beyond the title, the article is weak, needs some attention. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vallabha Bhatta is not Vallabh Acharyaji

Vallabhacharyaji is a Goswami (not Bhatt), in the lineage of Vishnu Swami, founder and most famous Guru of Pushtimarg. Not Vallabh Bhatta, which is mentioned in "Past times of Chaitnayaji". Not Associated with Gaudya Sampraday aka sect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.112.147.120 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Extremely biased

The whole article needs a critical rewrite--it reads like a religious hagiography and not an encyclopedia article, especially the accounts of his personal life that deal with visions and encounters with deities with dubious credibility. TheBabelTower (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Vallabhcharya's Birthdate

@Chariotrider555 I saw you reverted my edit to the addition of the birthdate, but not of the date of passing. I can see why that discrepancy might make sense. However, I do feel that, although Barz (2018) may discuss the difficulty of converting the birth date into the Gregorian Calendar, it is quite easy to do so using the tool I used, enabling us to provide a Gregorian Date. I say this with the following reasons:

(1) We know that Vallabhacharya's Vikram Era calendar birthdate was 11th of the dark half of Vaishakh in 1535.

(2) Since the calculations of the Vikrama Era are well defined, and the conversion between Vikrama and Gregorian is well defined (see "Calendrical Calculations", 4th ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2018) ; This is a publication by experts on calendrical systems that gives the calculations for conversions between different calendar systems around the world. The website I used to convert the dates uses the algorithms in the book for its calculations/conversions), it might be argued that the difficulty of conversion is not so serious.

(3) We could maybe reach a middle ground where the converted Gregorian date is given, but prefaced with the difficulty of conversion as Barz (2018) discusses. OR Put the difficulty of conversion in a note since the apparent difficulty of converting between calendrical systems is not as relevant to the material in the article itself.

Would love to know your thoughts. Might make for a worthwhile discussion in terms of the use of Indic date conversion to provide a reliable Gregorian Calendar date for the reader. I feel it would also help enrich the content of the article instead of leaving the reader with just a year, or approximate year, when sources on his life (sectarian and not) are consistent on the Vikrama Era birth date. Neo Carrot (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I would think the conversion to Gregorian to be a simple process, which is why I am surprised at Barz's comments and the scholarly dispute. Considering the fact that there is indeed a scholarly dispute about birthdate in general, it would be inappropriate of us to use a rote conversion based on a third-party website's formula, as that would constitute original research. I would like to see what the sources Barz cites say about the date.

Sources cited by Barz (2019)

• Timm, Jeffrey R. (2007). "Biography, Hagiography, Sacred Story: Vallabha, Viṭṭhalanātha and the Vallabha Sampradāya". Journal of Vaishnava Studies. 15 (2).

Barz says this article states discrepencies in Vikrama-Gregorian conversion, but I do not have access to it and would like a quote to see what justifications the author provides.

• Vaudeville, Charlotte (1980). "The Govardhan Myth in Northern India". Indo-Iranian Journal. 22 (1). Brill: 20.

Later then, in the year S. 1535 [A.D. 1478], on the eleventh day of the dark half of Vaiśākh . . . on that particular day, the Revered Ācāryajī [Vallabha] appeared too, coming out of the Agnikuṇḍ

• Snātaka, Vijayendra (1992). Śrī Vallabhācārya (in Hindi). New Delhi. p. 3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Barz says this book states 1478, but I do not have access to it and would like a quote to see what justifications the author provides.

• Parekh, Manilal C. (1943). Sri Vallabhacharya: Life, Teaching and Movment (A Religion of Grace). Sri Bhagavata Dharma Mission Series. Rajkot, India: Sri Bhagavata Dharma Mission. p. 3.

This event took place on Thursday, the elevnth day of the dark half of the month of Vaishakh in the Samvat year 1535, corresponding to A.D. 1479 . . . some believing it to have taken place in Samvat 1529 (A.D. 1473). We have accepted the year A.D. 1479 because it seems to fit in with the rest of Vallabha's life better."

• Glasenapp, H. von. (1962). "Die Lehre Vallabhȃcāryas". In Moeller, Volker; Nölle, Wilfried; Sprockhoff, Joachim-Friedrich (eds.). Von Buddha zu Gandhi: Aufsätze zur Geschichte der Religionen Indiens von Helmuth von Glasenapp (in German). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. p. 193.

• Glasenapp, Helmuth von (1984). Doctrines of Vallabhacharya. Śrī Vallabha Studies Series. Vol. 2. Translated by Amin, Ishverbhai S. Baroda: Shri Vallabha Publications. p. 193.

Vallabhacharya (1479-1531 A.D.) . . . This is the ruling view, according to another Vallabhācārya was born in 1473 (N.G. Shah Sketch of Vallabhacharya's life" introduction Page 21).

Sources cited by Barz (1976/1992)

• Śāstrī, Kaṁṭhamaṇi (Sa. 1997 [A.D. 1940]). "Jagadguru Śrīvallabhācārya". Kāṁkarolī kā Itihāsa (in Hindi). Vol. Dvitīya Bhāga. Kāṁkarolī: Śrīvidyā Vibhāga. p. 19-20. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Śrīvallabhācārya kā prākaṭya saṁ. 1535 sāke 1400, vaiśākha māsa, kr̥ṣṇa pakṣa kī 11 ke kina ravivāra ko dhaniṣṭha-nakṣatra

Śrīvallabhācārya appeared in Saṁvat 1535, Shāka 1400, in the month of Vaiśākha on the 11th day of the dark half on a Sunday in Dhaniṣṭha constellation

Kaṇṭhamaṇi Śāstrī goes on to quote numerous sources (Vallabha Digvijaya, Sampradāya-pradīpa, Sampradāya-kalpadruma, Vrajabhūṣaṇajī's vaṁśāvalī, Br̥hatstotra Saritsāgara, Nija Vārtā, a kīrtana of Gosvāmī Dvārakeśa, etc.) which support the Saṁvat 1535 year. He notes only in a book called Kallola is the year Saṁvat 1529 mentioned. Some variants of Śrīnāthajī kī prākaṭya vārtā mention either Sunday or Thursday as his birthdate. There is also an old letter in Kāṁkarolī's Sarasvatī Bhaṇḍāra in connection with the year Saṁ. 1526 but that it is in Sanskrit and no Śāstrī gives no Hindi translation. He also notes some people who believe Saṁ. 1535 to be Vallabha's year of yajñopavīta in accordance with South Indian tradition. Barz uses this book to mention A.D. 1473 as an alternative of the common A.D. 1479.

Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555 Yes, similar to what you're thinking, I do feel it's important to look at how the sources Barz uses came to the 1479 date. It seems in general people subtract 56 from the Vikram Era year to reach the Gregorian "Equivalent" (Which seems to be the case here). But that is a crude estimate since it doesn't account for the difference in the starting point of the year between the two calendrical systems. It could still be 1535 Vikram Era while it switched from 1478 CE into 1479 CE.

I understand your point of original research since the sources do not themselves give an exact conversion. The sources in fact seem to just follow along with the "subtract 56" "rule". However, I would slightly disagree with your point of the seemingly "less reliable/valuable" nature of the website for converting between the calendrical systems. The algorithm employed by the website is the exact one given by the scholars in the book. And that book is akin to the gold standard of scholarship on different calendar systems and the conversion between them.

On a general note, is there any policy on Wikipedia that covers this issue? Though academic scholarship may not seemingly put enough effort into providing a proper Gregorian converted date in full, it is quite easy to do that conversion nowadays. So a fault in an academic source shouldn't really perpetrate through Wikipedia either right? Neo Carrot (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hawley, John Stratton (2015). A Storm of Songs: India and the Idea of the Bhakti Movement. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 187.

A somewhat later composition also called a vārtā and also attributed to Harirāy—the Śrī Govardhannāthjī ke Prākaṭya kī Vārtā supplies an additional dimension. Unlike the vārtās we have so far mentioned, it begins to deal in actual dates, and one of the most crucial of these specifies the time of the would-be founder’s birth. The date in question—later it came to be accepted as fact—is the year 1478 (V.S. 1535), and the reason that date was assigned has once again to do with Braj . . . The C.E. year is often given as 1479, but since the exact time is specified to be the eleventh day of the dark half of Vaiśākh in V.S. 1535, this does not seem possible (Śrīnāthjī kī Prākaṭya Vārtā, 2). The followers of Gokulnāth hew to a different tradition, favoring the date 1473 (Mital 1968a: 3–4; Tandan 1960: 548–551). No date is given when allusions to Vallabha’s birth are made in the Caurāsī Vaiṣṇavan kī Vārtā itself.

I think this is a good source to prove that indeed A.D. 1478 is the correct conversion of the 1535 Samvat birth date. I think we can go ahead and put 1478 as the correct year, what do you think? 03:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555 Yes, I agree. I think we're good to put 1478 as the correct year. The conversion of the full date to Gregorian also gives 1478 CE. (May 7, 1478; I mistyped when I first put the date.) If you're okay with the full date as we have it for his death, then I think that would really enrich the article.

On my second point, do you have any insight regarding Wikipedia policies, or the standard regarding different calendar systems? Neo Carrot (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this can help MOS:OSNS. But few sources along with sources mentioned here do say 1478 A.D. Asteramellus (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:OSNS does discuss the discrepancy between Julian and Gregorian calendars, but does not go into much depth for other calendar systems. However, it does mention that the History of Islam article uses both the Islamic and Gregorian calendars for its dates. This may be the model to follow. For example, for Vallabha's date of birth, Vikrama Era dates could be phrased like so: "Vallabh was born on the 11th day of the dark half of the month Vaiśākh in 1535 VS (7 May 1478 CE)." OR more concisely "Vaiśākh vada 11, 1535 VS (7 May 1478 CE).

Putting both the Vikrama Era date and the Gregorian calendar date in the infobox could be followed in the style of Abu Bakr and similar such pages where the Islamic calendar is used. @Chariotrider555 @Asteramellus Thoughts? Neo Carrot (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Neo Carrot I think body of the article can have both Vikrama Era and Gregorian calendars for clarity (with note if needed), but infobox don't need both - it can have just the Gregorian date. Asteramellus (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'm going to go ahead and make the appropriate changes to the date of birth and add the clarification by Hawley (2015) to that section. Neo Carrot (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of non-notable texts authored by Vallabha

User:Neo Carrot, I do not think non-notable texts written by Vallabha should be included, by which I mean texts which have not recieved scholarly attention and are just listed among his works with no description of their contents. I also doubt the reliablity of Potter's list, considering he includes "Tattvadīpikā on the Bhagavadgītā", in which he confusing Vallabha (A.D. 1617), son of Raghunātha, with Vallabhācārya. Chariotrider555 (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Saha (2015) lists Aṇubhāṣyam, Subodhinī, Tattvārthadīpanibandhaḥ, Ṣoḍaśagranthāḥ as Vallabha's most notable works, and then states:

There are other smaller works attributed to Vallabha. Some are said to be lost while in the case of other texts currently circulating within the Sampradāya, it is difficult to ascertain if they are indeed his works. Chariotrider555 (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555 I see what you're saying. However, I would say that it is important to include a complete record when possible. For example, if someone of notability had children who did not achieve anything, or were of no interest to academics studying that individual, then would you leave them out of a Wikipedia article? I think what we could both do is go through the list and confirm authorship. If the text has dubious authorship, then we are free to exclude that text. Do you agree? Neo Carrot (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Neo Carrot, Yes, if those children are nonnotable (in that they recieve no meaningful coverage in a reliable source) they should 100% be not be included. Potter is definitely not a reliable source for the list as he makes careless mistakes and is not an subject-matter expert. Barz and Saha already have citations, and they only mention Subhodini, Tattvārthadīpanibandha, Aṇubhāṣya, Tattvārthadīpanibandhaprakāśa, and Ṣoḍaśagrantha as Vallabha's notable works. For coverage of minor works the works of Govindlal Hargovind Bhatt or Mulchandra Tulsidas Teliwala should be consulted, and I am sure they do not cover some of the most minor works, which as Saha states are said to be lost or works attributed to Vallabha but not actually written by him Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)