Talk:Bhavishya Purana

Muhammad

We should mention this article which claims that Muhammad was a prophesized in the Bhavishya Purana http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism/articles/188/1/Bhavishya-Purana-The-Prediction-of-Islam/ Armyrifle 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The Prediction of Islam

I have deleted the description regarding the Prediction of Islam under the section 'Pratisargaparvan' as the article only gives half the truth. The link provided in the article was http://www.astrojyoti.com/BhavishyaPurana.htm which does does describe the full phrases.

This link http://www.indiadivine.org/articles/188/1/Bhavishya-Purana-The-Prediction-of-Islam/Page1.html and http://bhavishyapuran.blogspot.com/ includes the full article and also the original Sanskrit phrases.

I have not included these reference in this Wikipedia article as this presents a critical view of Muhammad. But until a full consensus is made on whether this is necessary here, I believe there should not be any half baked theories and stories presented to glorify their own purpose or idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1ifes4v3r (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Bhavishya purana crystal clearly mentioned a name of a mleecha (foreigner) : Mahmad. Since it is a name of mleecha ( a person who speak foreign language) it can't be broke like Mah + Mad or It can't be translated with sanskrit language since it's a foreign name, not sanskrit name. This name is telling definitely name of Prophet Mohamad of Islam.

A name can't be broken in two pieces. Ex- Take a name of scientist Newton is a name of scientist and it is taken from old english and it means 'enclosure' or 'settlement> So name of Great Scientist Newton name meaning is 'enclosure or settlement' but if you break it like New + Ton then it's meaning will completely changed. It will be than New - introduced,not existing before and ton means ' a unit of weight'. So the meaning of Newton will completely changed and also a Name is never translated. If someone name is Ahmad then you can't translate it into 'praise' in english and write that. Name will always be Ahmad despite the language it is written. For example a person name Kala (in hindi) can't be translated into Mr. Black, his name always be Mr. Kala. Names are never translated especially if they are foreign names.

So definitely this name is of Prophet Muhammad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.135.187 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

You should not have deleted it Bobby Bichum (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Shaiva or Brahmic ?

Unlike Winternitz, Freda Matchett says that the Bhavishya Purana is associated with Brahma (rajasic) rather than Shiva. Buddhipriya, can you please look into this and see if it is worth mentioning ? The reference is as follows (I know you have the book):

Mathett, Freda, "Purāṇa" in Flood, Gavin (Editor) (2003). The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1-4051-3251-5. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help), pp. 137

Abecedare 05:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Both methods of classification are used. I have added the rajas version as well. Neither system is particularly useful or reliable, but we can only report the facts. Buddhipriya 06:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. For any other article I would have thought of this Rajas/Shaiva classification as unimportant trivia that can be safely left out. However since we have so little reliably sourced information (as opposed to what google throws up) on this Purana, it may be wothwhile to mention these classifications and let the reader make of they what he/she may.

The article does looks greatly improved compared to just 6 hours back. Great job! Abecedare 06:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not think to research this on Google. But now I predict that in the future we can expect some interesting edits in the future. I am visualizing the great psychic The Amazing Criswell and his ominous predictions of "future events that will affect you in the future" or something like that. Buddhipriya 06:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Refs

Hello, gatherd some Refs or External Links

http://www.vedam.org/bhavishyapurana.php?id=35

include them into article. --Prapan (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That commercial website is not a reliable reference for wikipedia, nor an appropriate external link. Abecedare (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi...

I edited the name of the Purana in question, in the initial description. Reason: the transliterated version did not match the Devanagari. Here is the line as it was before I edited it: भविष्य पुराण Bhaviṣyat Purāṇa

And here now it is after deleting one letter to make it match the Devanagari: भविष्य पुराण Bhaviṣya Purāṇa

I am aware of the reference showing both titles as correct. My only intent was to make the Devanagari and its transliteration match. Savitr108 (talk)

Mahāmada

the literal meaning of this name, taken as Sanskrit, is "excessively drunk, excessive or violent rut (of elephant bulls)". Is this an unintended coincidence, or a tongue-in-cheek slight on Muhammad (it is, after all, a rather fitting name for a destructive Asura). dab (𒁳) 10:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Monier-Williams has the same: next to "excessive or violent rut", he lists "great pride or intoxication". Böthlingk has, in addition: "a rutting elephant" and "fever". Aryaman (☼) 11:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The time line on the article is way off. Bhavishya purana is maybe 3000 B.C . The Mahamad part should be put up in an new article Maha Bhavishya Purana, cause in The first Bhavishya Purana says Tripurasura will be re-born in Kali Yuga and will be reincarnated as Tripurantaka after Shiva tames the soul. somebody should fix up the time line --Kapanad (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Kapanad, indeed, the date was sourced by some unknown editor months ago. Although this suggested page was never created. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems like Shurpnakha underwent gender-swap surgery and became MahaMaada to exact revenge from Hïnđūism. Atul Kaushal 06:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected

I've currently semi-protected this page for 3 days, as it appears to be a target of abusive sockpuppetry (see, for instance, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ). If needed, new users can request edits with the {{editprotected}} template. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Fix up

The way the Article mentions Muhammad is not appropiate, fix up article and removing vocabulary that could be changed into better content. --MianJi (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to explain that further, please. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The sock farm continues. [1] Redrocket (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on the latest ANI discussion, Redrocket. I was not even aware of it till now. Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, that's actually how I was drawn over here. Well, that and being called a sockpuppet. Something that ridiculous was worth checking out. I'll help keep an eye on it in the future. Redrocket (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, the Muhamad entry seems to have been inserted by user named Padan (who also sockpuppets as User Rajivlal and is currently under accusation, see his user page). User Padan has inserted references to Muhammad/Abrahamic figures and the Bhavisya Purana in at least two dozen articles on wikipedia in the last month. His point (in these two dozen wikipedia articles that he has defaced) seems to be to draw connections between Hinduism (and the Bhavishya in particular) and Mohammad, the former as having predicted or foretold the latter. In this he seems to be following the well known missionary of this view, Abdul Haque Vidyarthi (google his name). Indeed of Padan's three "sources" for his insertion in the Bhavisya article as well, one points to Haque's book (and the other two are meaningless pointers to the text of the BP: everyone knows its in there, the question is its politicization and interpretation). On this question, the scholarly consensus clearly is that these references in the BP are late/modern additions (since the BP speaks about Queen Victoria, English trading practices, Jesus, Mohammad, and so on). Certainly Winternitz (who comes up often in this discussion and is a bonafide scholarly source) rightly dismisses these as corruptions of the BP, while Padan wants wikipedia readers to take them literally (as does Mr. Haque who is decidedly NOT a scholarly source here).

Aside from wikipedia standards on sources, User Padan, it should be noted, is clearly on a mission here (and the quote on his user page indicates this, something about freeing his oppressed brethren). He has been warned several times by various users -- see his contribs page and talk page. His sources for his contributions are all questionable (either unsourced, or very poorly sourced to missionary or religious pamphlets found online).

The complicated history of the Bhavisya Purana in the modern era does not help things here. We can remove Padan's entries (as I will in a moment), but perhaps some of this politicization can be addressed by a short mention of the modern history of this text, the BP. A quick google search brought up a longer discussion of its modern history in the "Encyclopaedia of Hinduism" (by Nagendra Kumar Singh, on google books)). While Singh also takes it at face value that references to the bible and Queen victoria are modern insertions, he make the argument that they should be considered part of the 'living purana' and not excised. Others of course (winternitz for one) do not share that view. Also one of the interesting things in Singh's account of the manuscript history is that there were apparently multiple sources of these accretions in the text, some by Hindu attempts to coopt western threats, others by Christian missionary attempts to coopt Hindu texts, Still others (like Haque) being Muslim missionary attempts: multiple sources and moments in these accretions, as opposed to just one person or group being responsible. At least that seems to be different interpretations of the the manuscript history that are out there.

Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere, since I think most people who come to this page will likely have been following one of the political fights over it (from these various groups). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jak68 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Mahāmada

Note the book Muhammad in World Scriptures Vol 3 is now available online in PDF

Link - http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/others/abdulhaqvidyarthi/muhammadworldscriptures3/muhammadworldscriptures3.pdf

only works in PDF and explains prophcies along with references for claims. Great book, enjoy --Abduleep (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad/Jesus

A new user has reveted my changes with the words "user doesn't seem to understand Bhavishya Purana". Im guessing that this is a sockpuppet of a repeatedly appearing user who seems to be a Muslim promoting the idea that Muhammad was predicted by Hindu sources. I've rewritten his contribution in English, but the whole section looks to be the reverse of what scholarship actually says about the meaning and content of the Purana. 'Twice born' is a familiar phrase in Sankrit as anyone should know. I've no idea what the author means to imply by phrasing it the way he does. Paul B (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You providing an Blog link. Keep in your mind that Blog passage was perhaps done by an Vandal or somebody who has poor Sanskrit literature. If you need help heres an proper link with Sanskrit scholars and refs for claims [[2]] if you go through this website you will find many information books and references. It was already discussed earlier and stop removing references/sources in the passage. --RajivLal (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your link is to a Muslim website, specifically an Ahmadiyyi one. They obviously are not remotely unbiassed. My link was to a site that contained the original Sanskrit. Of course it was not 'done by a vandal', as you well know. Here are some others [3] [4] [5] You cannot create footnotes that have no references to actual books, publications or page refs in the way you do. Paul B (talk)

Perhaps you didnt notice the above link that was mentioned earilier here http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/others/abdulhaqvidyarthi/muhammadworldscriptures3/muhammadworldscriptures3.pdf probably you can see that ? and if you notice thats an information book with ref/sources for claims. --RajivLal (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are your numerous personas are not aware of what constitutes legitimate academic literature rather than religious propaganda. Paul B (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User Rajivlal aka Padan aka DWhiskaZ is promoting the views of Muslim Ahmadiyya missionary Abdul Haque Vidyarthi (aka Dr. Haq; google him) and indeed User Padan/Rajivlal/DwhiskaZ produces Haq's (decidedly political) book as the "source" for this repeated insertion in these and other articles that try to connect Mohammad with the Bhavishya Purana. For Bhavishya Purana which was extremely politicized from the moment it was discovered (and was never found in an untampered manuscript) it will be best to stick with long standing and bonafide ACADEMIC sources (Winternitz in particular and others) rather than contemporary biased and controversial missionary interpretations like Dr. Haq's. Additionally, if these modern insertions into the Bhavishya Purana are going to be mentioned at all with any seriousness, they should be *properly* contextualized and not pretended like they are either authentic or uncontroversial (as Rajivlal/Padan/DWhiskaz wishes to do). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jak68 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

All of them are under cite notes with notable scholars. Winternitz, Rajendra Chandra, Hazra, Mathett, Abdul Vidhyarthi, Ramanujan, A. K etc ... User:Jak68 stop vandalising pages and getting involved without any status. --RajivLal (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User Rajivlal/padan/DwhiskaZ: You did not cite any scholars, out of that list you only cited Abdul Haque who is not a "notable scholar" but an Ahmadiyya activist. Jak68 (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You need help. Please go and research an Bio data about Abdul Haq Vidyarthi. --RajivLal (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference for articles on hinduism should not be sourced from muslim websites. Interpretations of even basic sanskrit terms are twisted, let alone whole passages. The interpretation of the purana by a Ahmadiyya missionary is absolutely uacceptable as a source as the missionary's sole aim and purpose is to spread islam, and this purana's prediction clearly does not help their motif. Interpretation has to be sourced either form research websites of well known institutions or from books by well known sanskrit scholars.Parthashome (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

the problem is not only sources from "muslim sites" as much as it is the singularly un-historical approach that is taken with respect to "Hindu scripture" (whose scripture is it exactly?). The shoddy and transparent claims made by Zakir Naik-esque types are only possible without a proper historical treatment of these texts, the blame of which goes to those who, on the one hand, always strive for some contrived antiquity, and on the other hand get angry when those same claims are exploited by zakir naik and his ilk. I think its just as unacceptable to speak of "this purana's prediction" as though it was actually made prior to the existence of muhammad. The whole "purana" is an historical and continuing interpolation used to give credence to political issues that the authors faced in the not-so-distant past. --Gnana (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted link from AnsweringIslam(dot)org(dot)uk

I've just deleted a link belonging to above website due to its highly polemic nature (what else does the name suggest?). If anyone out here has a link which explains similar concepts and doesn't belong to a POV-filled site as is the above, then please share and discuss. Another reason (much smaller though) for deletion of the link was that it was posted by someone by the name of Ganesh, the Edit-History (atleast the last 500 [6]) don't have anyone posting as 'Ganesh' (a sockpuppet at work again?). 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dating of the Bhavishya Purana

I edited this article a few months ago, but the constant harassment by sockpuppet User:RajivLal forced me to retire from this article. I had a great paragraph from a book written by an academic scholar on the dating of some sections of the Purana to the 19th century. I am afraid to re-insert this paragraph since I did not want to start in another great edit war. Should I re-insert this paragraph? Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!}

Actually, I do not think this would help improve this article. After rereading it, I have noticed that it's structure and style is extremely confusing and unencyclopedic. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 15:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Call to permanently protect the article

I would like to request a permanent lock on this article considering the level of vandalism of the article. Only registered users should be allowed to edit this.Parthashome (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference for articles on hinduism should not be sourced from muslim websites. Interpretations of even basic sanskrit terms are twisted, let alone whole passages. The interpretation of the purana by a Ahmadiyya missionary is absolutely uacceptable as a source as the missionary's sole aim and purpose is to spread islam, and this purana's prediction clearly does not help their motif. Interpretation has to be sourced either form research websites of well known institutions or from books by well known sanskrit scholars.Parthashome (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Biblical references

Noah is mentioned in Bhavishya Purana by name Nyuha. Nyuha (Noah) is reffered to as devotee of Vishnu. "Nyuha (Noah) ruled for 500 years. He had three sons named Sima, Sama and Bhava. Nyuha was a devotee of Lord Vishnu." Nyuha is also mentioned in relationship with boat (see about Noah's ark). This story is similar to Vaivasvata-Manu mentioned in relationship with Matsya-avatara of Vishnu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theismcontrib (talk • contribs)

I saw you added this to a bunch of articles. Unfortunately, you only provided one reference on one of those articles, which is to a dubious source here. What we need in order to include this are:

1. More neutral wording, attributed to someone. I cleaned up the wording a bit on Noah's Ark to read:

   According to some Hindu scholars, the Bhavishya Purana compares Nyuha to Noah. In the story, Nyuha is a devotee of Vishnu, and he builds a boat and that saves him and others from a flood.

   That still needs some more work, however.
2. A better reference which complies with WP:RS

If you can track down both of those, we can probably include this content in most of the articles you added it to. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 20:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Biblical and other characters are mentioned in the Purana, yes. Mohammed and Queen Victoria get a mention too. It's not necessarily worth making an issue out of it. These passages are believed to date from the 19th century. Essentially they are appropriations of non-Hindu cultures to a Hindu interpretation. This is already concisely discussed in the section on the Pratisargaparvan.Paul B (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, he was just blocked as a sock of a disruptive editor. I was doing my absolute best to take him seriously, but clearly that effort was misplaced. Jess_talk|_edits 04:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A full source needed

The article needs an authentic source. If anyone is willing to upload a scanned sanskrit pdf to an easily accesible location, it would really make all the issues easier to discuss. At present there is no complete annotated original sanskrit or English translation available that can be referred to quoted/cited in order to resolve the issues. 101.215.61.207 (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Book is available online. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Prediction

It is completely empty here,no mention about predictions of Muhammad and Jesus,please include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.183.97 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't "predict" something that has already happened. The passage in question is in a section that was written in the 19th century. Since the "prediction" is of a quasi-demonic disruptive character who will threaten the True Dharma, it's hardly one that Muslims should be too keen to confirm. Paul B (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I think on notability terms a footnote right at the bottom of the article probably needs to mention the Holger Kersten etc popularisation of "Jesus in the Bhavishya Maha Purana" and then why an early date is rejected by mainstream scholars. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

3000 BC dating

I have removed the following recently added (ungrammatical) sentence to the article, "While some estimates suggests that scriptures dates back to 3,000 BCE.", which cited:

• Jeya Thangakone, "Eternal Truth is One: Experiencing God as in Major Religions", P. 11
• Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince, "The Masks of Christ: Behind the Lies and Cover-ups About the Life of Jesus", P. 347

because,

1. the 3000BCE is a ludicrously exceptional claim (predating rigevda and even sanskrit!), which would require exceptionally strong references for support, and
2. neither of the two sources that only mention Puranas in the passing and are by authors with no known expertise or academic qualifications in the field (cf, Moriz Winternitz, FE Pargiter, the other scholars cited in the section), comes even close.

Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well Abecedare, it's not actually FRINGE, because there's no 100% exact number about these books that when they dated. Nor there's any exact date about sanskrit, as some of the sources even state it to be more than 5,000 year old[7] by Laurie L. Patton, and Edwin Bryant,[http://archive.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-plastic-surgery/volume-4-number-2/sushruta-the-first-plastic-surgeon-in-600-b-c.html], and more . Same with Vedas, as Bal gangadhar tilak suggested 6200 BCE for it. These types of stats are similar to the Zoroaster's birth, which is usually regarded as 700 BCE, but exceeded to even 6000 BCE sometimes, according to one source, which can be refuted in few seconds, but main point is that we don't ignore either estimate, thus both estimates are added due to the reliability, as per it was noted by one of the editor around, about 4 years ago. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That first reference doesn’t support the assertion at all, rather the contrary: the authors are quoting the claims of Misra there, which they describe as “faulty, nineteenth-century type” and (a couple of paragraphs later) “clearly impossible”. As for the second, a journal of plastic surgery can scarcely be considered a reliable source for historical linguistics. Zoroaster is “other stuff” and quite irrelevant to the issue here.—Odysseus1479 00:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Odysseus, if you clearly watch, all of those sources that i added were not related to this subject at all, they were related to scriptures such as "Vedas" or language "sanskrit" instead, because the editor was presenting a date about them, and my point was that they aren't 100% exact either. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As WP:GEVAL states, "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship."

If some established scholars in the field dated the Bhavishya Puranas to 3000BCE, we would document that, just as we cite the varying estimates provided by Winternitz and Pargiter. However the sources listed above are very much outside the mainstream and fall under (non-notable) WP:FRINGE; hence we do exclude them. I'll post a message at WP:FTN to get more views on the issue. Abecedare (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

But WP:GEVAL will also include the other estimates, that doesn't seem to be more popular than the 3000 BCE claim either. Like i written above, the Zoroastrian's 6000 BCE date is also recognized here in wiki, even though it's backed by only one source, there's nothing such as "established scholars", as those who stated 3000 BCE are as credible. A lot of theories inside the book adds the stories, that were actually written or evidently happened before 2000 BCE, thus 3000 BCE claim is not nonsensical but adds a prominent view. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The 6000BC date referred to in the Zoroaster article is merely a report of what the ancient Greco-Roman writer Plutarch said. It's not presented as a viable theory. There's a huge difference between giving a scholarly estimate of a date and describing beliefs that have been held in the past. If there are scholarly sources which discuss, say, Brahminical traditions or historical beliefs then they can be included to explain the history of theories or religious beliefs about the dating. Paul B (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, what is this? Please read a primer on Sanskrit literature, we are not a discussion forum. I can assure you that there is no "Sanskrit literature" dating to 2000 BCE, and that that no respectable source even approaching "WP:RS". We are an encyclopedia. Please, if you want to contribute here kindly display a willingness to research the bare bone basics of your chosen topic before imposing on other people's time. --dab (𒁳) 10:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Dbachmann, that was more than 1 year ago and I had just registered.. I had hardly any idea about reliable citations and I wasn't aware of normally accepted dating(e.g. 2nd millennium BCE for Vedas, last centuries BCE - early centuries CE for puranas). I wasn't the original editor of this information but only thought of making a discussion about it. Although the citations(that were used or I had suggested) weren't reliable enough, and it took just a few hours to confirm. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)