Talk:Gaudiya Vaishnavism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Miscellaneous

The term "Hare Krishna" including Hare Krishna mantra automatically redirects to Iskcon: this is totally unacceptable as this mantra is not the unique property of Iskcon and derives it's meaning and significance outside of Iskcon. I have corrected this inappropriate propaganda but others may still exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.164.118 (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The following text was removed from the Krishna article; it would be better placed here somewhere -

Krishna is revered as the Supreme Personality of Godhead by devotees, not just as a demigod, but as the primal eternal force. Thus many believe that Hinduism in fact is a monotheist religion, since all other gods and demigods are seen as expansions of Krishna. Devotees believe that by worshiping Krishna with determination and faith, "Engage your mind in always thinking of Me, become My devotee, offer obeisances to Me. Being completely absorbed in Me, surely you will come to Me" (Krishna tells Arjuna during the Kurushetra war- Bagavadgita), one is able to transcend the contaminating materialistic influences of life and finally attain moksha (freedom from the eternal cycle of birth and death). This is the essence of the Vedas and other Hindu spiritual texts.

Imc 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like it was cut and pasted from one of Prabhupada's books. Runa

'Hare', pont at hare a rabbit maybe that page needs a disambiguation... Syama 01:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a spelling error in "achintya beda-beda" I fixed it and linked it to the wikipedia article on it. I also removed a part of it's wrong definition. The definition included the words "inconceivable oneness and difference of god and the soul". That was incorrect. Achintya means inconceivable and bheda-abheda means oneness and non-oneness. So I trimmed down the definition because the actual philosophy of achintya bheda-abheda is about the oneness and difference of everything with God, not just the soul with god. Shiva das 22:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

krsnas tu bhagavan svayam is grammatically incorrect. It is krsnāstu bhagavan svayam. Krishna and astu are joined via samdhi. The short a of both words is elongated. Astu has several meanings, one of which is "is". Literally the phrase is "Krishna is God Himself". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.130.164 (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is not from krsna astu, but rather krsnah tu. The meaning of tu is generally ‘but’, although a reading of ‘verily’ might make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:157:F400:C5B:51F9:A270:C009 (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Gaudiya Math

Let's try to keep this article an article on the entire Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, there is a separate entry for Gaudiya Math. If you haven't researched the historical issues discussed, please don't go reverting or changing what I've written, discuss first here. Raga 10:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggest merging the section on Gaudiya Matha under the actual Gaudiya Matha entry that looks pretty stub. --Raga 12:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Tagged for rewrite

I tagged the article for re-write. It's a mess. It has no comprehensible structure. Raga 11:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Ekantik 00:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at a re-write and removed the clean-up tag. I believe the article still needs much work, but at least the situation is not quite so critical as before. GourangaUK 10:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Organization listings

"SKCM of BV Puri duplicated, already listed under Gaudiya Math"

So is ISKCON. Yet your edit included ISKCON, as well. Siyavash 12:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Ah, the subheader within this article, I thought you meant the seperate article. No big deal. Siyavash 12:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overall, there's unnecessary repetition we need to address. --Raga 12:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

History

Please note that the "theory of decline" is a claim by the Gaudiya Math, and is not agreed on by the rest of the tradition. As you can see from my 17th-18th century description, the tradition was alive and vibrant. I have then changed, "Gaudiya Vaishnava history asserts" to "Gaudiya Math historians assert".

I am copying from my article on history at Gaudiya.Com. Consider reading the text there in its entirety. Raga 12:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be an entry "The time of Sri Chaitanya" that describes the times of the first generation of the movement. -- Raga 13:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggested headings

The first section on comparative Vaishnava theology needs to be moved further down. It's also pretty messy.

The following headings need to be added:

• Theology

There's already an article for Gaudiya_Vaishnava_theology - seems to be largely copied from Gaudiya.Com and deals with history, there's hardly theology there at all.

• Religious practice

(suggest an outline of the five main aspects of sadhana)

• Holy places

Vraja, Navadwip, Puri

What else? ---Raga 12:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Raga - That sounds like a much better layout format. Do you think we could merge the good info from Gaudiya_Vaishnava_theology and re-direct the page here?

New headings:

• Philosophy and Theology or just Gaudiya Philosophy as a section?

- dealing with acintya-bheda-bheda and other points etc... The comparative section is a mess, you're right. Maybe there could be some comparison section near the bottom of the page. Also there's little mention of any scriptures in the article at the moment, not even pointers... I'll have a think about anything else that might be a good idea. Ys, GourangaUK 14:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I apologize for dropping out of Wikipedia and Gaudiya Vaishnava / Hinduism related articles for the time being; I'm working on a separate GV-themed encyclopaedia that takes all the time I can put into work like this. --Raga 15:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed additions by 220.233.182.89

The following passage by 220.xxx was removed:

However siddha-mahatmas such as Srila Jagannatha das Babaji Maharaj rejected many of the ideas about raganuga bhakti introduced by Siddha Jayakrishna Das Babaji. Descendents of Srila Jagannatha das Babaji Maharaj such as Prabhupada Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura expressed the view that the tradition of Siddha Jayakrishna Das Babaji was in fact a substantial deviation from the actual teachings of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

This is nothing but uninformed propaganda. If someone wants to put this paragraph bach, references to Jagannath Das Babaji's words are needed. There are numerous existing diksa-lineages coming from JDB, none of them have rejected Jayakrishna Das Babaji's concepts.

220.xxx also removed the section on printing presses and the section on the mainstream tradition's view of Gaudiya Matha. That was uncalled for, they have been put back. Do not attempt to remove them again without discussing here first. In general, please restrict Gaudiya Matha propaganda to headings under Gaudiya Matha and qualify it as their views (NPOV), and leave the rest of the article for statements you can actually substantiate as facts. May I remind that this is an encyclopedia, and you can publish opinions somewhere on your own websites. --Raga 22:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Page: Gaudiya Vaishnava theology

These two articles appear to be covering identical ground, although the other page reads as less neutral in it's present state. I've taken what information seemed appropriate and moved into here. Regards, ys GourangaUK 11:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Guru Parampara article?

What would you all think about a Guru Parampara article that would have a list or chart of the various lineages in Gaudiya Vaishnavism? Of course with multiple traditions and the acharyas who represent them, it may prove to be complicated, but perhaps multiple articles could be created. I'm not entirely sure if this is a plausible idea, so I am summarizing it here first. Siyavash 15:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Criteria of Notability

There is a list of people considered notable in the article. Currently its

• Notable modern-day personalities (corrected list 09:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

• • Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Goswami Maharaja
  • A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
  • Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja
  • Gour Govinda Swami
  • Bhakti Vaibhava Puri Goswami

Any consideration on the criteria applied to select this particular list? Some of them are from the last century, and we still call them 'present day'. The criteria needs to be provided and consensus reached. Use of words is deceptive, as according to Wiki definition of notability the list should be expanded to include all BLPs. Wikidās ॐ 22:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, there needs to be some consensus on the criteria. Do you have any proposals? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I suggest two options: Remove all

Or remove one person who is still with us and expand the list to be renamed Notable 20th century personalities.

There could be category: Present day Gaudiya Vaishnava leaders, but I personally do not think its a good idea, as it contains POV in the category itself, so a lot of reverts can follow.

I would examine Bahá'í Faith and try to restructure the page in a similar manner, avoiding personal advertisement as much as possible, which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Wikidās ॐ 22:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like your idea of "Notable 20th century personalities." What do you think of dividing it into centuries that follow Caitanya Mahaprabhu? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeap. Lets do it. I think we have sufficient material to do it up to the 16th century. Wikidās ॐ 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Some keep pushing a POV on notability without claims supported by reliable sources. I guess the solution is to exclude BLPs from this unless there is a notability proved by overwhelming evidence from WP:RS. Unsourced claims of notability will be deleted and repeated addition will be treated as disruptive editing with a potential ban associated. Wikidās ॐ 09:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk about NPOV! ISKCON does not have any exclusionary rights on modern Vaisnavism please stop your non-NPOV removal of non-Iskcon Vaisnavas Syama (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Revamp

This page needs a revamp. A complete restructuring and loads of references and illustrations. It should be feature article candidate. Is there anyone out there to work on it. Wikidās ॐ 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC) I would love to be involved in this. My grasp of html and other source coding is little to none but I second with you regarding the revampPrahlad 108 (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not see a need of serious coding or formating here. Its the case of stating facts about many aspects of history, structure, symbols and scriptures in plain and neutral English. That is not too much to ask, but at least a couple of editors are needed to keep the balance. Wikidās ॐ 19:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference section was deleted

I have restored the references section. I believe in the process of different editors changing the page, the references section was deleted on accident. I have restored it as it is important. Also, for future additions to the article, reliable sources are needed as references. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable 20th Century personalities

Is any Gaudiya Vaishnava religious leader with a Wikipedia article qualify for inclusion? What is the criteria? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

By definition of WP:NOTABILITY everyone who is notable can be notable if he or she falls in the category. However to state that one is notable is duplication of what is already assumed for anyone who is in the Wikipedia anyhow. I would suggest a standard template for the list as in Template:Modern Dharmic writers for example, in the same way we should have Template:Modern Gaudiya Vaishnavas and then separate them as appropriate. Wikidās ॐ 18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Wikidās ॐ 19:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, that is perfect. Thank you, yet again. I appreciate it. Ism schism (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has a suggestion as to how to improve the template discuss it at Template talk:Modern Gaudiya Vaishnavas - this template is quite standard. Of course if someone is not notable, he will be deleted from both Wikipedia and from the template. There are other ways to sort the persons - by name, date of birth etc., we should agree on the system or to accept the proposal. Syama, please stop removing it from the page, it clearly distinguishes both ISKCON and non-ISKCON figures, nobody talks about a monopoly here. Wikidās ॐ 20:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing "Modern Gaudiya Vaishnavas"?

"Pre-ISKCON" and "after the founding of ISKCON" could be removed, since the page is about Gaudiya Vaishnavism, not about ISKCON. One could as well write "post-Gaudiya Math" for indicating Gaudiya Vaishnavas belonging to ISKCON. But both ISKCON and Gaudiya Math are Gaudiya Vaishnava organisations representing branches of Gaudiya Vaishnavism only, not the entire vast spectrum of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. "Modern Gaudiya Vaishnavas" or "Contemporary Vaisnavas" would suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sri Radha Vallabha (talk • contribs) 16:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Tirupati Image

This is a Vaishnava temple, but not a Guadiya Vaishnava Temple. There should probably be an image of a temple in Mayapur or Vrndavana here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.53.67 (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ishta Devata --> Svayam Bhagavan

Should the term Ishta Devata be replaced with Svayam Bhagavan? The term Ishta Devata is generally used in tradition like Smartha where one is allowed to pick their preferred object of worship. Gaudiya Math is very strictly a Krishna devoted movement, only honoring other deities as servants to krishna. Hence the term Svayam Bhagavan is used within the movement to denote the form of Krishna worshipped.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it looks like someone switched that, not sure who but thanks!Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Turya

@Ms Sarah Welch: could you please take care of this? See especially this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@JJ: Will do. Partly for now, leaving some content in as WP:AGF. Will take a look at the Gopala Tapani Upanishad manuscript and RS on it next week, then clean up a bit more if appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)