Talk:Narayana sukta

I used secondary sources for Narayana sukta this time. What was the problem with it?

Swami Krishnananda sources

(edit conflict)Please note that the Swami Krishnananda article has been massively pruned because of its long-term reliance on primary and affiliated sources. Those sources included publications by the Divine Life Society and its associated press. Basically, the only stuff that has ever been proferred on Wikipedia regarding Krishnandana being a reliable source are works published by the religious association of which he was a prominent member but which itself may well be a fringe group & certainly hagiographises him, both literally and metaphorically. Indeed, the biographical article had the appearance almost of an advertisement for the DLS, so much was his life hyped up. We really need to assess the reliability of the man before he can be cited. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is his reliability being discussed if at all? I would like to join in. Notwithstanding the fact that DLS profits from his work, he is still a well published author and the only modern Indian commentator to have synthesized the work of previous commentators like Sayana, Ramanuja etc. His works and not works by DLS on him, are pretty reliable as translations and interpretations of ancient Indian texts, IMO.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is being discussed here, now, although the recent decimation of the article on him might perhaps give you some sort of insight regarding the problems. That was rather unfortunate, but necessary. I can see it becoming a stub before much longer.

Who is his publisher? Aside from the DLS and/or their associated press. In what way is he any more reliable on matters relating to old texts than, say, another niche commentator such as Ishwar Sharan? How do we know that, unlike Sharan, he is not a fringe theorist etc? Given your opinion, do you have expertise as a translator of ancient texts? I mean, if you were yourself a published academic in the same sphere as Krishnananda then, although we cannot use you as a source etc, we might be able to make some progress in other directions. The fact that he is the "only modern Indian commentator ... etc" is of no relevance to his reliability. I know that I have mentioned WP:RS to you recently but I think that perhaps you would benefit from re-reading it. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I checked a few websites, he doesn't seem to be peer reviewed. But his works such as Studies in Comparative Philosophy among others confirm he is no fringe theorist like Ishwar Sharan. Having read his body of work I can say he is in the same category as Vivekananda or Aurobindo, both of them weren't peer reviewed and their works will never find a place in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. However, they were respected mystics, spiritualists and their works do find a place in Wikipedia. Basically, Swami Krishnananda is not any more reliable than these two. Whether to include his works as references or not is a tough call. Btw, I have not published anything that can help.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

On a personal note, I seem to be running into this problem again and again. None of the India's original thinkers in the last century, that I think achieved something substantial in the field of philosophy, are peer reviewed. U.G. is another example.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding Vivekananda etc, I have referred you to WP:OSE on numerous occasions now. Have you actually read that article? Everything else that you say is your own opinion based on your own readings, and I note that even your link is to one of his advocacy organisations. Sorry, but he is not reliable unless you can come up with something a lot better than this ... and, what is worse, I notice that you have been using him elsewhere even after been informed a few days ago that there were issues. All those cites will likely be removed also unless we can find something that resolves the reliability issue. As things stand, the man is reliable just for his own opinion, which is pretty useless really & especially so in such a contentious area as religion. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your 21:10 note, with which I edit conflicted, a read of WP:SYSTEMIC might explain things a little. Wikipedia is not a perfect environment, either in its English version or indeed any other. - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the sukta identify Narayana as the trinity?

The following statement "It is a sung to worship Narayana, the universal Self which is identified with the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva" was removed by an editor recently. The source (scroll down to the end of the page) used for the above statement states: "The last verse clearly states that it is Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva all in one. Narayana is all forms of Hindu trinity in one."

Apart from this, many primary sources such as translation of the sukta by P. R. Ramachander also corroborate this statement: "Tasya shikhaya madhye paramathma vyavasthitha, Sa brahma sa shiva sa hari sendra sokshara parama swaraat. In the center of the flame lives the all-pervasive God. Who is Brahma, Who is Shiva, Who is Vishnu, Who is Indra, Who is perennial and ever living, And He is the greatest emperor."

This source offers the following translation: "tasyāḥ śikhāyā madhye paramātmā vyavasthitaḥ, sa brahma sa śivaḥ sa hariḥ sendraḥ so'kṣaraḥ paramaḥ svarāṭ. In the middle of that Flame, the Supreme Self dwells. This (Self) is Brahma (the Creator), Siva (the Destroyer), Hari (the Protector), Indra (the Ruler), the Imperishable, the Absolute, the Autonomous Being."

If the usage of the word "trinity" is a problem it can be removed from the sentence and Indra can also be included. However, there is little doubt that Narayana is identified with Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva in the sukta. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)