Talk:Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad

Untitled

I don't endorse having the entire translation here. This is what wikisource is for; but first we have to establish whether the text is even in the public domain. dab (ᛏ) 13:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

it turns out the text dates to 1938. It is copyright violation to paste it here. But we can have the original text on Wikisource, of course. dab (ᛏ) 13:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 18:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

date

Evidence that the Upanishad predates Mahaprabhu? Seeing that it figures in the Muktika canon as 103 out of 108, it stands to reason that it was considered one of the most recent at the compilation of that canon. However, it is unknown when that canon was compiled. All that can be said is that the canon predates 1656, when it was first recorded in historical context. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the Muktika canon dates to the 16th century, and that the Kali-Santarana Upanishad may date to either the 15th or 16th century.

My question is, is there any support of the assertion that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's use of "Hare Krishna" necessarily predates the Upanishad's use of "Hare Krishna"? --dab (𒁳) 12:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't saying that Mahaprabhu's use of "Hare Krishna" predates the Upanishad. It is saying that the Upanishad most likely predates Mahaprabhu's use of "Hare Krishna", which would be the reason he encouraged its chanting so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.85.53 (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm I always have serious doubts when it comes to dating any Vedic text. There is major tendency to make them as modern as possible. And in this case that Caitanya even invented the mahamantra. One more reason why I am avoiding citing wikipedia more and more.106.51.19.129 (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Restore suggested

My apologies to any Bhaktas, but I believe this article has lost a lot of important information in order to protect an unsupported theory. The version here [1] seems to give the most information, but was apparently censored for suggesting Caitanya Prabhu didn't introduce the mahamantra. I believe both sides can be defended and one does not need to be supplanted by the other. Therefor I recommend restoring the version mentioned above, and editing in the Gaudiya perspective (with citations) that Caitanya introduced this mantra before this upanisad was composed.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Beatles and English music charts

@Gareth E. Kegg: It has multiple sources. What is your concern with those sources? I invite you to discuss it on this talk page per WP:BRD. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What was the name of the Beatles album? Which British music chart did it top? Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I will try to look it up. But, FWIW, Charles Brooks' book published by Princeton University Press is WP:RS. Have you looked into it? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The author obviously means The Radha Krsna Temple (album) which was produced by Harrison and released on the Beatles record label, Apple Records. A cursory glance at The Beatles discography and List of UK Albums Chart number ones of the 1970s puts the citation in doubt. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Peter Clarke's 2005 book (ISBN 978-0415267076) published by Routledge, on page 308 states, "There they captured the imagination of The Beatles, particularly George Harrison who helped them produce a chart topping record of the Hare Krishna mantra (1969) and ...". Kenneth Womack's 2009 book The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles published by Cambridge University Press confirms two of the songs made it to the UK charts, the Hare Krishna mantra and Govinda. All these are recent WP:RS. I still don't have a WP:RS for which British music chart it was, but I will keep looking and add it if I find that information, to help make this article more encyclopedically complete. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This cite exactly supports what I've said, thank you. The Hare Krishna mantra peaked at 12, and Govinda at 23. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gareth E. Kegg: In lieu of your concern about the Brooks' source, I have revised the language which seems supported by multiple recent WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

References

DYK was wrong

Note that the above (header) DYK entry was removed (hours too late) from the main page for being wrong on multiple issues. It wasn't a beatles' recording, John Lennon had no hand in it, and "topped the charts" is debatable (it never made number one, it reached 12 in UK and 15 in Germany and an unknown position in Czechoslovakia). We have one reliable source about Hare Krishna in India (so not really an authority on Western pop music) which is contradicted by every other reliable source about the Beatles and recordings associated with them. Fram (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

(@Fram: copy-pasting from the other talk page, since you have posted this in both places)

Here are two sources, one a secondary source published by Princeton University Press and another a tertiary source published by Routledge:

1. Charles Brooks (1989), The Hare Krishnas in India, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-8120809390, pages 83–85, Quote: "Hare Krishna Mantra soon became the number one song on the English music charts, and had similar success in West Germany and Czechoslovakia".

2. Peter Clarke (2005), Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, Routledge, ISBN 978-0415267076, page 308 Quote: "There they captured the imagination of The Beatles, particularly George Harrison who helped them produce a chart topping record of the Hare Krishna mantra (1969) and ...".

I am also able to verify what @Fram states, the song reaching #12, staying on the charts for weeks, etc. The good faith question is whether the other authors are referring to the same music charts in 1969, and whether there was only one music chart? Given the controversy, I will update the article further (include the above dissenting viewpoints for NPOV with WP:RS), and leave the DYK decision to the consensus. The following seems supported by the multiple sources "... that a song based on Sanskrit language mantra verses in the Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad became a chart topping recording on the 1969 music charts in Europe?" Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that those were exemplary sources, and you were right to base your DYK hook upon them! Princeton University Press is one of the finest publishers we have. "...George Harrison produced a recording of the Hare Krishna mantra that reached 12 on the British pop charts" would be eminently acceptable. PS. Thank you for all your brilliant Hindi related work recently, its astonishing. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly. A source about Krishna in India is often not the best source for information about Beatles' records in the UK and Europe, and should be checked with sources directly about that subject (when used as a DYK hook at least), since there are more than enough sources available about this (in English and online). I wouldn't use a scholarly book about the Beatles to state facts about Hare Krishna in India in a DYK hook, the reverse should be avoided as well. But at least this one was sourced to a RS, just not a RS for this fact: usually DYK problems are a lot worse, with "facts" not appearing in the source at all. Fram (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: The whatchamacallit above that states, "A fact from [this article] appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column," yada yada yada, should probably be removed. 71.183.137.161 (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the DYK box. 71.183.137.161 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Romanised Sanskrit letters

The IAST Romanisation of the Sanskrit title and of the Wiki page (Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad) does not match that in Devanagari (कलिसन्तरणोपनिषद्). If the Devanagari is correct, then the Roman text should be Kali Santaraṇa Upaniṣad (no below-dots for "nt", and no macron over a, in the second word. If the Roman is correct, then the equivalent Devanagari should be कलिसण्टारणोपनिषद्. Request someone learned in Sanskrit or on the book to advise. Vedabit (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Page name

The page should be moved to Kali-Santarana Upanishad to remove the dots from the words, and to conform with the spelling of other articles about Upanishad. However, an administrator is needed to move the page over the redirect. Yoninah (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)