Jump to content

Talk:Shesha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Please do not merge Sesha with Naga (mythology). Sesha islone of the four mythological nagas listed under Naga (mythology) which is plenty to connect the two. Merging the two entries would give the appearance that Sesha was the only mythological naga. Thank you. -68.50.228.88 08:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the merger as well. No reason for the merger was given by the proposer. There is much to add to this article. Imc 18:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sesha Naga

[edit]

Sesha Naga is exactly the same as Sesha. DaGizza Chat (c) 06:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Transliteration

[edit]

Moved article from Sesha to Shesha. The latter is the 'simplified transliteration', as described in WikiProject_Hindu_mythology#Nomenclature_and_transliteration. The original was quite inconsistent. Imc 17:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits 9 June 2006

[edit]

I've changed or removed the following;

  • 'expansion of Vishnu' – this is meaningless to most of us. What is an expansion of Vishnu, an incarnation?
  • capitalised third person pronouns and nouns ('He' instead of 'he'); it has been policy not to use these, this is not a religious tract.
  • 'he is shown ... as a many thousand-headed snake, with each head wearing a ornate crown.'. That's not likely in any ordinary drawing; I'd like to see one of these depictions.

Also there's a number of quotations. These are still there, they may flesh out a short article, but they should be summarised into encyclopaedic form.

Imc 16:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Imc - I've reverted certain changes.
  • Shesha is described many times in the Puranas as an expansion of Vishnu - this may be an abstract concept to many people unfamiliar with descriptions of Vishnu and His forms, but that doesn't change the fact He is described in that way. It could be an idea to explain the concept of an expansion somewhere else, rather than delete it?
  • I'm agree with you on the H's - as that's Wiki policy.
  • Even in the drawing given on the page, he has many hundreds of heads - this is to depict the great number, it's obviously difficult to draw such a form, but there are some I have seen with many heads going off into infinity.
The quotations give a bit of weight to the article - I don't see a point in summarizing them - then you loose the meaning? GourangaUK 16:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, what Puranas and what translations please? I'm aware of this term only with the literature that I associate with ISKCON. Imc 18:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Imc, the more I think about it, the more I think you're right. 'Incarnation' and 'avatar' are more recognisable terms, and the whole expansion thing is only a very subtley different concept, more popular amongst the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.
See the following link regarding Sesha as an expansion of Balarama http://vedabase.net/sb/10/2/8/en1
  • "There is no difference between the expansion, the expansion of the expansion, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead directly, as there is no difference between one candle and another -- but still the candle from which the others are lit is called the original. Krishna, therefore, is called the Parabrahman, or the ultimate Godhead and cause of all causes." (quote from Srila Prabhupada)
All the best GourangaUK 11:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info box

[edit]

I've removed the info box because I really don't think it adds anything to the page. I realise it may be a form of 'standardisation' but the layout of the page looks messey compared to the when just the image is there. Unless there is a way to fix this? GourangaUK 17:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need a better picture of adisesha. It is not understandable without an appropriate pic. Thanks.

Dear Anon - I personally quite like the current image, and it is copyright free. If you have another image to add also which is free from copyright then please post a link here or upload it into Wiki. The more images the better :-) GourangaUK 08:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

god or just a naga

[edit]

is he a god or just a naga?--D-Boy 06:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol - According to the Bhagavata Purana and Brahma Samhita Shesha is the Primal Lord (God), but He is also King of all Nagas. Maybe the introduction could be clarified somewhat, I see your point. Ys, GourangaUK 09:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to the Bhagavata Purana

[edit]

The opening paragraph of this article refers to the Bhagavata Purana, 1.3.23, as support for the proposition that Shesha is an incarnation of Vishnu. I've found an online translation of the BP which does not appear to say this at all. Here is the link: http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto1/chapter3.html. Someone with more background knowledge on the subject should look into this and make a correction. DoktorMax 04:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the reference wasn't correct - I have replaced with a suitable quotation from the 5th Canto.[1] Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

poepie

[edit]

poepi legoveeee nomjk jkbfdn hgvfgyc h dry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.76.52 (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Ancient History Keralam was Known as Patala

[edit]
  • "Encyclopaedic dictionary of Purāṇas" quotes,[1]


References

  1. ^ Swami Parmeshwaranand. Encyclopaedic dictionary of Purāṇas, Volume 3. p. 762.
  2. ^ K. R. Subramanian. The origin of Saivism and its history in the Tamil land, Section D. p. 13.
  3. ^ Sekharipuram Vaidyanatha Viswanatha. Hindu culture in ancient India.

Anantha

[edit]

Jrao, this is an incorrect spelling (see BG 10.29 etc.). Why do you keep reverting to it? Jan 90.178.151.214 (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ananta is the right spelling. Prefix An (no) + anta (end) Sanskrit: Na anta yasya sah: one who does not have an end (anta).--Redtigerxyz Talk 10:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The second and third external links are broken. Could someone update them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.192.36 (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shesha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shesha&oldid=1211733295"