Talk:Vaishnavism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Bhagavad Gita

Due to Krishna's being the teacher, it is of course revered by the Vaishnavs, but the Bhagavad Gita is not a Vaishnav text, just as the Mahanirvana Tantra (in which Shiva speaks) is not a 'Shaivaite text.' (the tantras are Agamic texts). The Gita is a self-proclaimed Yoga Upanishad, and has been viewed as Yogic, Tantric, Vedantic, AND Theist by many schools.

Hare Krishna != ISCKON pamri 11:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Bhagavad Gita is certainly a Vaisnava text! After all, its speaker is a favorite deity of Vaisnavas, Bhagavan Sri Krsna. The fact that other types of religionists, yogis, etc. find it useful does not detract from its position as a Vaisnava text. You might as well claim that the New Testament is not a Christian text because, as a pillar of Western civilization, it has been appreciated apart from its religious context. You could say that the Qur'an is not an Islamic text, that the Dharmapada is not a Buddhist text, etc.

Jai Sriman Narayana!= Sri Sampradaya User:Govinda Ramanuja dasa 11:33pm, 16 Nov 2007

He was saying that it is Not exclusive to Vaishnavas only, but, inclusive to ALL Hindu groups. The favorite deity for Vaishnavas originally is Four Armed Narayana in Vaikunta! But, His avataras and remember (Vishnu's) avataras; like Krishna is also revered.

Sects.

As the term sect is understood according to its Wikipedia definition, it is inappropriate to describe Vaisnavism. Sect implies a breaking away---from what did Vaisnavism "break away"? Sect also imples tension with its social environment, as if a sect were a minority facing a hostile majority. Yet Hindu society throughout its history has been distinguished by its pluralism. In such an environment, one's religous beliefs generally provoke little comment from others---there is no doctrinal heresy in Hinduism precisely because Hinduism is not a single religion. The terms sect and denomination were developed to describe a single religion---see the discussion beginning with Max Weber---and do not make sense for Hinduism. The exception would be WITHIN Hindu religions: if a particular school of Vaisnavism or Saivism, for instance, were to split into two or more groups, we might call these groups sects. But by definition---by the Wikipedia definition---sect means cleavage AND social tension. Without social tension, it probably does not make sense to use the term sect for any religious group.

Recent History

Baha'i is most recent form of Vashnavism to be found in India and around the world. Baha'is see Baha'u'llah as the incarnation of Kalki, the return of Krishna for the end of the world. It is now a major group of people, over 6 million in over 236 nations. They even have the most visited structure on the face of the planet; the Lotus Tempe in New Delhi. They are the only recent group of people or religion from outside of India to believe in Krishna under the same general divine prospects as Vashnavism. Therefore, they are the most recent available historical group for this article. It is very relevant in the section because the sentence before says: "With the entry of other religions into the Indian subcontinent, Hindus became more united and the discriminations of Vaishnavism and Saivism turned more into intellectual arguments rather than mutually exclusive philosophies." This is the perfect segway and definition into the Baha'i phrase, definig its characteristics and rise. 24.248.188.30 10:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anon, with all due respect are the Bahai's not more of a global movement, than a 'Vaishnava' one imparticular? Of course in a greater sense you could argue that Christianity and Islam are also forms of Vaishnavism, because true Vaishnavism simply means 'love of God', but I don't think that's what most people mean by the term in a wikipedia/scholarly sense. I've got nothing against the Bahai movement at all, I just think your desire to include it in this article is maybe somewhat misplaced from a scholarly perspective? Also your sentence which I quote below is totally incorrect:

• "They are the only recent group of people or religion from outside of India to believe in Krishna under the same general divine prospects as Vashnavism"

There are a number of movements now outside of India which worship Krishna. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness is obviously the most well known for promoting the worship of Krishna imparticular. There is also the Gaudiya Math, and the Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mission. Within India there are the four Vaishnava sampradayas (Rudra-sampradaya, Brahma-sampradaya, Lakshmi-sampradaya & the Kumara-sampradaya) coming from acharyas such as Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya and Nimbarka. Which Vaishnava lineage is the Bahai faith connected to? Or would you agree it is more of a universal movement which incorporates some teachings from the Vaishnava traditions along with many others? GourangaUK 14:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the anonymous editors statements, but the way the statement was written in the article was not totally true, so I have removed it. There is no incorporation of teachings here. The Baha'i Faith views Hinduism (as well Christianity, Islam, and other religious traditions) as a progressive set of teachings from God, and see Krishna as a Manifestation of God, and in that sense Baha'u'llah is the most recent incarnation of Krishna. Baha'is see the social laws of Hinduism being abrogated by Baha'u'llah's newer revelation.

Regardless, I don't know if it fully fits in the article, unless there is another section of other views so I'm just posting here to clear up misconceptions of Baha'i belief. -- Jeff3000 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making it more clear Jeff. Ys, GourangaUK 08:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The name Vaishnava

Jai Sriman Narayana! Sri Sampradaya user: Govinda Ramanuja dasa 19 nov 2007 12:00am This is a very interesting topic to discuss. Vaishnava means....Worshipper of VISHNU/NARAYANA. According to the original vedic scriptures...it says Narayana; the four-armed Vishnu in Vaikunta is the supreme. Not His avataras.I know what your arguements are! We know what verses you use. If you like, please go to your nearest Sri Sampradaya temple or any of the prominant Sri Vaishnava websites, and discuss with ACTUAL,vedically trainned pandits about what the verses you use REALLY mean. We Do Not agree with the sadanta of your gaudiya group...we should have more representation on the Vaishnava section on Wikipedia. The Whole Vaishnava section is heavily slanted towards the Gaudiya group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs) 11:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Would I be correct in thinking that in Sanskrit, Vaishnava is the plural form, and that Vaishna is the singular form, for devotee/s of Vishnu? Imc 07:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Imc, I've only ever come across the terms 'Vaishnava' (single) and 'Vaishnavas' (plural). Never heard of Vaishna. GourangaUK 09:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Same for me actually, I was extrapolating from other words. And now I gather from other sources that there is no such word Vaishna. Imc 19:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I can be of help here. In Sanskrit grammar, one strengthens the medial vowel or sometimes the medial and final vowels when you want to indicate "that which is related to x". Thus, Visnu (the God)/Vaisnava [the i becomes ai and the u becomes ava]. The same goes for Siva/Saiva or Buddha/Bauddha. The addition of -ism or -as is merely adding Western endings to Sanskrit words. (JW)

Achintya-bheda-Abheda

I've noticed a few times on Wikipedia the miss spelling on this term. It should be spelt Achintya-bheda-abheda. I changed it on this page. If there are any complaints, please let me know.Vidyapati dasa 05:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Articles?

I've added a tag to merge Vaishnava theology into this page as both articles cover very similar (if not identical) ground, and it might make more sense to have one clearly detailed and referenced article than two somewhat unstructured ones. Does anyone have any thoughts, ideas or objections? Ys, GourangaUK 11:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Vaishnavism is not Henotheistic

Someone changed the opening paragraph and took out the word panentheistic and replaced it with henotheistic. I changed it back because that is wrong. Vaishnvaism is panentheistic and is not henotheistic, there is only belief in one god. There is also a belief in devas, or demigods, but they are seen as ordinary human souls who have been elevated to positions of celestial management, similar to angels and archangels in the abrahamic traditions. Henotheism is the worship of one god but the acceptance of more then one god, it is similar to polytheism in that both believe in more then one god. Vaishnavism is strictly monotheistic. Vishnu is god and no other entity is equal to or greater then Vishnu. That is the most basic teaching of Vaishnavism. Also Vaishnavism teaches that God exists outside of the universe in Vaikuntha, and also pervades the universe as the substance of the universe. Vishnu means all pervading. So that is a panentheistic belief. Shiva das 23:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In the original priciples of Vaishnavism, vedic scriptures and the original standards laid down by Ramanujacharya....Narayana is all the universes and they come from Him and He is IN and out every part and aspect of it as the Supreme Soul. There is nothing BUT Narayana, every thing IS Narayana, There is ONLY Narayana...as explained in the Narayana suktam and Narayana upanishad and many,many,many other Vedic texts and mantras. The Vashishtadvaita principle of the Sri Sampradayam explains this perfectly. And, following the Original principles Vedically for Brahmana-Vaishnavas,a person Spiritually grows to understand this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs) 11:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Vaishnavism is Henotheistic

Monotheism is the belief in one God while holding the rest to be False Gods. Since when did Vaishnavas start saying the Gods like Brahma and Shiva are false? Henotheism is the belief in a Supreme God with the rest as being subservient to the will of the supreme. Vaishnavism holds this stand. It is not panentheistic. Vaishnavas dont worship Shiva,Brahma etc. even though they acknowledge their existence. All pervasiveness is one of the powers of the lord. That doesnot mean everything is God!!

In reply

It appears to be a question of definition:

• Monotheism: "The doctrine or belief that there is only one God"
• Henotheism: "Belief in one god without denying the existence of others"
• Pantheism: "A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena" or "Belief in and worship of many gods"

Vaishnavism only believes in one God (God in this sense means Supreme God) whom is Vishnu. Vaishnavism does not recognise any other God as being equal or superior to Vishnu and thus would not come under the category of being Henotheistic. It does, however, recognise Vishnu as being existant to some extent as the Universe (it is one of his energies) and does not reject the existence of devas as described in the Vedic texts, thus could in someways also be described (although not primarily) as pantheistic. Ys, GourangaUK 12:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean panentheism? Pantheism has different meanings but the main point of the doctrine is that that the universe is the manifestation of god. Panentheism is pantheism with the addition that god is not only the substance of the universe but that god also exists outside of the universe, transcends the universe as well as being the substance of the universe. All vaishnava traditions teach one form of panentheism or another. In fact henotheism is not a part of any tradition within hinduism. There are 2 basic existential ontologies within hinduism when it comes to god. Monotheistic monism and monotheistic panentheism. The smarta, advaita, shaivite and shakta traditions believe in monotheistic monism. To them Brahman is everything. All gods like Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, Kali, Sarasvati etc, are taught as being incarnations into the material realm of the one unchanging Brahman. They are not many gods but manifestations of one supreme god: Brahman. The vaishnava traditions are different in that Brahman is taught as one aspect of Vishnu and that all other gods (other then Vishnu's avatars e.g. Krishna, Rama, etc) are not simply manifestations of Brahman but that they are ordinary souls (jivatma) who are temporarily elevated by Vishnu to positions of celestial management under the direction of Vishnu. In the vaishnava scriptures it states that god is the substance of the universe and not only an all pervading spirit. From the Vedas we find the Purusha Sukta wherein panentheism is expounded:

Purusha Sukta

All this (manifestation) is the Purusha alone - whatever was and whatever will be. He is the Lord of Immortality, for He transcends all in His Form as food (the universe). Such is His Glory; but greater still is the Purusha. One-fourth of Him all beings are, (while) three-fourth of Him rises above as the Immortal Being. (translation - Swami Krishnananda)

---

2. This Purusa is all that yet hath been and all that is to be; The Lord of Immortality which waxes greater still by food.

3. So mighty is his greatness; yea, greater than this is Purusa. All creatures are one-fourth of him, three-fourths eternal life in heaven. (translation - Ralph T.H. Griffith)

---

Purusha alone is all of this, that which was, and that which is too be. Moreover of immortality too is he alone Lord. That which as food (atirohati) shows itself, that too is purusha. All that is here seen is his greatness. And then, beyond all this is that Purusha great. All that was created in this world is but one part of him. The other three parts are in heaven, where they are eternal. (translation - Sri V. Sundar)

---

Bhagavad Gita

Translation - Swami Gambhirananda

7.4 This Prakrti of Mine is divided eight-fold thus: earth, water, fire, air, space, mind, intellect and also egoism.

Translation - Dr. S Sankaranarayan

7.4. My nature is divided eightfold, such as the Earth, the Water, the Fire, the Wind, the Ether, the Mind, and also the Intellect and the Ego;

Translation - Swami Sivananda

7.4 Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intellect and egoism -- thus is My Nature divided eightfold.

---

Bhagavat Purana 11.13.24

manasa vacasa drishtya grihyate 'nyair apindriyaih aham eva na matto 'nyad iti budhyadhvam anjasa

SYNONYMS

manasa -- by the mind; vacasa -- by speech; drishtya -- by sight; grihyate -- is perceived and thus accepted; anyaih -- by others; api -- even; indriyaih -- senses; aham -- I; eva -- indeed; na -- not; mattah -- besides Me; anyat -- anything else; iti -- thus; budhyadhvam -- you should all understand; anjasa -- by straightforward analysis of the facts.

TRANSLATION

Whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is indeed Me, and nothing besides Me. You should all understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts.

Henotheism accepts the existence of more then one god. Vaishnavism simply does not. The demi-gods in vaishnava traditions are the same as humans except they have been elevated to positions of celestial management by Vishnu. In vaishnavism Brahma is an ordinary soul but has been given a position cognate with an archangel in the biblically based traditions. Depending on the specific vaishnava tradition Shiva can either be an ordinary soul who has been elevated above the position of an ordinary soul and the demi-gods and is therefore given his own unique ontological position, or Shiva can be a plenary expansion or incarnation of Mahavishnu (Sadashiva). There are 2 categories of Shiva in vaishnavism, but neither one is seen as another god then Vishnu. Shiva is seen as either another form of Vishnu or he is an oridnary soul who has been elevated above all other ordinary souls including Brahma and the rest of the demi-gods. Shiva das 01:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Following recent edits regarding the question "is Vaishnavism montheistic?" - please refer to the above discussion entitled Vaishnavism is Henotheistic. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Vaishnavism and ISKCON slant

I marked the page NPOV as the page discusses only one sect of Vaishnavism. Equal footage is not given to other beliefs in Vaishnavism. In fact, it is not clear how the closed sect of Vaishnavism as practiced by Iyengars be compared to an open sect as practiced by ISKCON. Even the temple architectures and importance attributed are different. I believe that we need to split the article into 3, involving the believes of the ISKCON sect, Iyengar sect, and the believers of Vishnu from other communities.

Another comment is that all the images are copyrighted. Lot of free Vishnu images are available and thus, the fair use principle is violated. I'm going to separately tag those images.

Balajiviswanathan 18:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This page quite clearly does not discuss only one sect of Vaishnavism. If it stated "Krishna is the Supreme God" and "the ultimate dharma is to chant Hare Krsna" then it would be clearly a Gaudiya POV, but this article is far from that. Currently it discusses Vaishnavism as a whole - the four main sampradayas (from all around India), the relevance of different tilak markings etc... and there is a stub section where more detail needs to be added regarding the history of Vaishnavism.

ISKCON and Gaudiya Vaishnavism are dealt with on other pages it does not make sense to split this page into three. If you feel some detail is missing then please add it in. Yes, the Alvars are not mentioned enough - so add some detail please, I'm all for expanding the page further. Also if you have more pictures that you would like to add, then go ahead. Which statements do you believe are POV exactly? Please provide some specific arguments.

In regards to the pictures, previously no pictures were on this page, and nobody seems interesting in finding any without copyright. Surely it is better to make the effort and find some decent images before asking for the removal of those currently there? That is the only thing which I can see might be taken as POV at the moment - that ther images included are not from a mix of Vaishnava traditions. I sincerely believe that the text itself is from the neutral perspective, even if not full in every detail. I'm more than willing to work in making this article better if you have some information to add? Best Wishes, ys, GourangaUK 14:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have since removed one of the images sourced from the BBT and included another image of Vishnu as recently added to the Vishnu article. GourangaUK 14:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Atttiude to Scriptures

You have provided the attitude of Jiva Goswami who belongs to one of the several different Vaishnava subgroups. This is by no means a universally accepted approach and differs considerably from the Madhva position. I suggest you be specific and clarify that this approach is from a single Vaishnava subgroup and other groups have different approaches. You can contact www.dvaita.org for further details on this. 216.116.87.110 20:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is more than one opinion amongst Vaishnavas on Madhva's teachings, but as the quotation was somewhat of a general one I assumed (maybe wrongly) that it would apply across the spectrum. If a tradition or traditions from any of the Vaishnava sampradayas follow the practice of giving non or less literal interpretations of scriptures then it should definitely be noted in the article. I think we'd struggle to find a single viewpoint which would be universally accepted if that's the case, and would have to detail the variations in approach instead. Do you have a specific quotation in mind? I found this article when searching on the web: Interpretation as a Means of Understanding Tradition: A Srivaisnava Perspective, but could not source anything else in direct reference to scriptural attitudes. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the group that follows Madhva's teachings directly would be the correct one. However, the point is, we have different groups of Vaishnavas because of non-literal interpretations. If literal interpretation was the only way to go, then there would be only one commentary on the Brahma-sutra and hence only one tradition. The Vedas when interpreted literally are a bewildering mass of contradictions. In order to establish uniformity and consistency in their purports, all commentators have resorted to indirect or non-literal interpretations in several places. The same is true with the Bhagavad Gita. So it is best to say interpretations vary with different traditions and give Jiva Goswami's position as an example. - Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shvushvu (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

I have added a line regarding interpretations being made in line with different authorities. The fact that the different Vaishnava traditions follow different philosophies is made very cleary in the Four Vaishnava sampradaya section imeediately below. The rest of the paragraph in question is just explaining how each tradition at least attempts to understand the scriptures on a literal basis. With the addition of this extra detail I honestly feel it is correct in what is being said. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramananda

I have modified some recent edits regarding Ramananda and the Ramanandi sect in an attempt to better reflect the influence of the branch in comparison to the rest of the Sri Sampradaya. As the Sampradaya section lists the founders of different philosophical groups and sub-sets it did not seem appropriate to list Ramananda in that context. If anyone has any information to the contrary please discuss... Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gauranga Ji, I was the one who put the stuff in about Ramanand . I appreciate that you kept the change I made in the Tilak section. But I feel that the Ramanandi need to be mentioned in the Sampradaya section as well. Most people who call themselves Ramanandi today do *not* regard themselves as part of the same tradition as that of the Ramanujis. There are similarities, but very few. THe only ones that set the the Ramanujis and the Ramanandis together apart from other Vaishnavas are pretty much that both are called "Sri Sampradayis," that the Tengalai and the Ramanandi share the same forehead tilak , and that the latter are at least nominally Visishtaadvaitin (I say nominally because in some sections of the Ramanandi community, like the Tyagi ascetics, not much emphasis is put on philosophy as such.) Otherwise, the Ramanuji and Ramanandi sampradayas are distinct groups: the former say that Lakshmi Narayana is the Parabrahma while the latter say that Sita Ram is (or alternatatively just Ram)is the Parabrahma; the texts that define the Ramanuji tradition are their Tamil Divya Prabandham, the Sri Bhashya, and the writings of the Vadagalai and the Tengalai Acharyas, while the primary texts of the Ramanandis are the Ramcharitmanas, the writings of the Rasik Acharyas, oral tradition, and to some extent, the writings of Ravidas and Kabir. And what's more, most Ramanandis don't even accept Sri Ramanuja Acharya as a member of their guru parampara. "As the Sampradaya section lists the founders of different philosophical groups and sub-sets it did not seem appropriate to list Ramananda in that context. If anyone has any information to the contrary please discuss" Seeing that the two traditions are thus so different, even though the Ramanandis nominally espouse the same philosophical system as the Ramanujis, their differences are so great that we must identify them as different Sampradayas, and do the same in this article.

My sources: For the South Indian Ramanuja tradition: [[1]]

A site maintained by South Indian Ramanujis themselves.

For the Ramanandi ascetics: [[2]]

and

[[3]]

THese last two two are by the indologist Peter Van Der Deer

And for direct information about the topic central to the present discussion, the difference between the Ramanuji tradition and the Ramanandi one, William Pinch's "Peasants and Monks in British India": [[4]] --Raimmmmm 00:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Raimmmmm, thank you for coming back with the details. From what you have said, and some general reading regarding the subject it appears the Ramanandi sect follow the same Vishishtadvaita philosophy of the Sri Sampradaya, but with a focus on worship of Sita-Rama instead of Lakshmi-Narayan. As this doesn't constitute a new philosophy in itself (more a personal change in focus) I have added the Ramanandi sect into the 'other branches' section which seems to make sense than including details alongside the Sri Sampradaya which could lead to confusion. Hope you find this an agreeable option. Best Wishes, ys, Gouranga(UK) 16:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Gouranga Ji, I think its a great way to go. Thanks. --Raimmmmm 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vishnu and the God of the Abrahamic religions

"A number of Vaishnava schools identify the God of the Abrahamic religions with Vishnu, although it is not an essential tenet of Vaishnava belief, being outside of the scope of Vedic evidence." This sentence is found in, I believe, the first section of the article after the table of contents, and is without a citation. I will mark it as such.

Other

DUDE14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)! WHAT DOES HARE BOM MEAN?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!?!?!??????!!!!!!??!!!!!??????!1 ---East Elementary School, Brouston Park, Denver, CO164.92.175.76 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The name Hare in this context to refers to 'Hara' as another name of Shiva. I'm not sure exactly what Bom means, but it commonly appears in mantras connected with Saivism. Hare Rama, Gouranga(UK) 13:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits conserning Biasness

I have just reverted a number of edits of a strongly sectarian nature. Please discuss here before making any other changes. Moving your particular lineage to the top of the list and claiming they are "the original" Vaishnava line is not helping the article, please make any constructive points below and we can go through them. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I really can not believe that you took out the information that was put into the Sri Sampradayam Tilak section! It was information that was in accordance with the facts about the Sri Sampradayam. And, not at all hurtful to the Gaudiya Sampradayam. And again, it was a good addition to the section. I eventually will put pictures of the Telegalai and Vadagalai tilak of the Sri Sampradayam. You can just by seeing the Telegalai tilak, where other groups recieved inspiration for thier tilaks. And, the Gaudiya/Hare Krishna/I.S.K.O.N Tilak looks alot like it. The small white mark on the bridge of the nose of Telegalai tilak...represents the FEET of the Guru...why was it taken out. According to the original principles of the Sri Sampradayam and The Vedas; in order to Surrender to Vishnu, you have to go through the Guru, then Mother Laxshmi. But, She is the one who does bring you to Vishnu...first surrender to the Guru. And, "the original" Vaishnava line that you mentioned...just by cronological time; the Sri Sampradayam goes back way before the time of jesus, the Madhvacharya Sampradayam line started...with Madhva forming His line. The Gaudiya Line started with Caitanyacharya 500 years ago....all proven historical FACT.User:Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA11:00am 20 Nov 2007

On a certain part of the wikipedia page; it states that "if it can be proven". Well, it is a fact that The Sri Sampradaya IS the Original Sampradayam.I.S.K.O.N came from the Gaudiya Math, The Gaudiya sampradayam broke-off from the Madhava line, and the madhava line broke-off from The Sri Sampradayam. The Whole section of the Vaishnava section is TOTALLY Bias to the Hare Krishna/I.S.K.O.N/Gaudiya group and sect beliefs. I have notified wikipedia of this bias-ness. You and the I.S.K.O.N beliefs do not represent all of Vaishnavism. And, we have just much right to put the truth about Vaishnavism. And, I would like to help edit the page. User:Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA 11:00am 20 Nov 2007

On the scolars part of the vaishnava section; the people that you list DO NOT represent vaishnavism or the Vedic religion on a whole! Other Vaishnava scolars SHOULD be present there. And, the disclaimer that I put should be there.The Disclaimer on the Caitanya-carnamrita should also be there. This book is ONLY a Gaudiya group scripture. And, does not represent the beliefs of Vaishnavism as a whole. This PROVES that there is a heavy Bias to this page.User:Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA11:00am 20 Nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs) 19:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And, the changes that you did my editting, I am informing Wikipedia of what has happen...and if they can mediate between the both of us. This kind of strangle hold the section will not be tolerated. I will be informing others in the Sri Sampradayam community about this. User:Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA11:00am 20 Nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs) 19:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is VERY ODD that you only mention about me putting any Sri Sampradayam first...but, you did add the part about the disclaimers that were put the Vaishnava scholars part pertaining to all of the Hare Krishna/I.S.K.O.N people that were mentioned there, after the Caitanya-Caramrita quote stating that it is ONLY a Hare Krishna/I.S.K.O.N book or any of the other disclaimers to any thing blatantly I.S.K.O.N/Hare Krishna or any part that was put in dealing with the Vedically backed fact of Narayana as the Para form and Krishna as an avatara form OF Narayana. Or what about the parts that I put in about the Tilak of the Sri Sampradayam! You took that out. It had Nothing to do with I.S.K.O.N/Hare Krishnas and it was a good addition to the Tilak section.You only want your Hare Krishna understanding. And, I would like to put those changes BACK to the Vaishnava section or come up with a comprimise on the information on the Vaishnava section of Wikipedia. Jai Sriman Narayana Govinda Ramanuja dasa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Email and Postings conserning Bias

Dear Wikipedia, My name is Govinda Ramanuja dasa. I am a part of the Sri Sampradaya of Vaishnavism. I just wanted to let you know that who ever written the material for the Vaishnava section on your website, has written it with a subtle Hare Krishna/I.S.K.O.N slant to the whole page.

I feel that they minimized the role of other sampradayas or groups, especially mine. And, they did not give more adequate information about other groups.But, stress more of their particular group and slant on the and priciples of India.

I have recently started an account with you. I would like to add more information about my religion to the Vaishnava section and correct any misunderstanding of any of the other editors. Sincerely, Govinda Ramanuja dasa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs) 18:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, I am sorry to bother you about this. I recently sent an email consering the Hare Krishna Bias on the Vaishnava section of your website. I took your advice and did the editting. An editor...GourangaUK went in re-edited the section back to his I.S.K.O.N./Hare Krishna slant. On a part of your website, you state that if information is backed by fact, then it can be placed on the site....that is what I did. Plus, I put disclaimers on the Blatantly Hare Krishna parts...he took it out. He also listed names of HK Scholars...they do not represent hindu Vaishnavism or Hindu community as a whole. I put a disclaimer, and he took it out. I put some entries of my Sampradayam first, because of History and fact, we are the original group. And to understand Modern Vaishnavism, it practises, it principles and tranditions, you have to start with the Sri Sampradayam.All I am asking is there some way you can mediate between GourangaUK and myself....any help would be appreciated. People like him, and his sect have almost a strangle hold on the web when it comes to Actual Vaishnavism and Hinduism. Sincerely,Govinda Ramanuja dasa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• • From the Venkateshwara section of Wikipedia:

adiyen needs Help with with the Vaishnava and Saranagati section because of I.S.K.O.N bias! Jai Sriman Narayana! Dear Swami's My name is Govinda Ramanuja dasa, I live in the u.s.a. Just recently, I came to the Vaishnava section of wikipedia, I found that it had alot of I.S.K.O.N bias to it. I contacted wikipedia and they gave me the permission to make changes to. adiyen put useful information about Sri Vaishnavism...and iskon devotee kept editing it out. I did it three times and took it out three time. I put some very good information about our tiruman or tilak in the tilak section...and he took it out. I keep on informing Wikipedia and they said can do nothing. Please swami's help me! I am also will be informing some of the major Sri Sampradayam website for help. If you can, please leave me some kind of contact information, so I can contact you personally. please look at the discussions part of the "vaishnava" section of the correspondaces with this person. adiyen, Govinda Ramanuja dasa.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)09:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please "discuss" points

Dear Zeuspitar (Govinda Ramanuja dasa), you are very new to Wikipedia and I don't think you fully understand what is appropriate content and what is not. You have added some useful information, which I have kept (please see that it is not removed), however you also added a number of statements claiming that the Sri Sampradya is the original lineage (which is clearly your point of view only), and also you added strange notes about ISKCON in a number of places were they are not warranted. ISKCON is one Gaudiya Vaishnava organisation, the view of Krishna being the Supreme avatar is held in a far wider context then ISKCON alone. Also if you know of any other modern Vaishnava scholars who are working in the west please feel free to add them, rather than complaining that they are all from ISKCON. I'm willing to work with you, if you agree to be sensible and discuss things in a reasonable manner. Many editors have contributed here in order to create a (hopefully) balanced article. Best wishes, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There should be a Large disclaimer at the top of the page stating that the Vaishnava section has a heavy I.S.K.O.N/Hare Krishna slant and BIAS to it. To notify people that it is tinged with this groups philosophy and motives. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA comment added by 71.107.60.75 (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I can not believe that you took out how; according to the Vedas, Purana and the ORIGINAL principles of Sri Vaishnavism, the way of salvation in the Kali yuga in the Sri Vaishnava tilak section!? SV tilak section was large with useful information. But, you made it small compared to the Ga.Sam. tilak part. You even took out the part that dealt with the original ida/pingala/shushumna meaning of Vaishnava Tilak...That is very Strange! That is Very Bias! —Preceding Govinda Ramanuja dasa comment added by 71.107.60.75 (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I simply removed information which I consider to be point of view statements, or which made the paragraph read in a confusing way. It has nothing to do with any perceived bias I assure you. My aim is that this page is accurate, and reads as clearly as possible. What exactly do you feel is missing from the text currently? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

All I have said IS FACT! What did you take out all the information on Sri Vaishnavism in the Tilak section?! Why did you take out the word "dharana" while actual Vaishnavas ARE suppose to be doing Dharana on Vishnu?!The FACT that the Sri sampradayam is the first unrefuted! the strange note on I.S.K.O.N. that were unwarranted....COME ON! Because of your group history...your group does not represent the whole of the hindu community! And, many in the whole hindu community agrees. I will NOT swerve with the I.S.K.O.N Bias! the caitanya-caramrita is ONLY an i.s.k.o.n/Gaudiya book. Krishna is know to be an Avatara form all over vaishnavism and all over hinduism. What I put about Narayana and Krishna is backed by FACT. I have notified Wikipedia about this bias-ness. and, I have all of the changes that I made...I am very upset about the entries to the Tilak section...why did you take it out. —Preceding Govinda Ramanuja dasa comment added by 71.107.60.75 (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Prabhuji, you are not helping your case by reacting in this way to some relatively small edits. Dharana linked to a largely irrelevant page about astanga-yoga. I've since replaced a link back to dhyana, which simply gives a list of different yogas, how is removing this link biased? In terms of the origins of the Sri Sampradaya, I thought that according to belief it began with Lakshmidevi? Just as the other sampradayas began with Brahma, Shiva and the Four Kumaras? In which case, how can anyone argue that one line is older than another? Who is older: Brahma, Siva or Lakshmi? The sampradayas have different opinions on the nature of Krishna, all of which are explained within Wikipedia. We can't give one opinion as FACT within this article. I'm trying my best here. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Gouranga, the dharana link is absolutely relative to the vaishnava practice part of the page. According to the original principes of the Vedas, Sri Sampradayam and Ramanujacharya...Bhakti yoga of Vaishnavas was to practices vedically back Ashtanga yoga...but LOVENLY meditate on Vishnu. And, Dharana on the four-armed form of Vishnu in Vaikunta or His avatara forms, and chanting the ORIGINAL maha-mantras for Vaishnavas set out by Ramanujacharya and surrendering to Sri Venkateshwara is the path in the Kali yuga. Again, according to history...Sri Sampradayam dates back to way before the time of Christ, unto the time of Ramanujacharya, The Madhva line, started with Madhvacharya some time after Ramanujacharya's passing. The Caitanya line started with, Caitanyacharya forming the Gaudiya Sampradayam 500 years ago. Also, with the name "Sri Sampradayam", Sri or Laxshmi mata, represents The Path of Surrender to Narayana, hence the S.Samp. It denotes the way, the process to Vishnu. According the original principles...Laxshmi,represents the LOVE of Vishnu...She is Vishnu's Love. She is the embodiment of the Param prikriti. She is the process, the way of surrender to Narayana,Hence, Sri Sampradayam. Where other latter day groups get these names Brahma and etc. for their sampradayam names...it is just that, latter day "stuff". The relativistic idea that all Sampradayams are equal or that they all steem from the past equally, are just modern day attempts and understandings to ajust and comprimises for sooo many groups vying for philosophical dominance. With me,....it's all about following the original VEDAS and the original Vedic standards. The Vedas, Main Upanishads and Sattvic Purana's and Ramanujacharya are Saying one Thing and others are saying other things. name before "Sampradayam" should represent the way or path back to Vishnu or with your group, Krishna. And, Laxshmi or Radha is the path, the way, and the process of salvation at the Feet of Vishnu/Krishna. The issue is not that who's older Brahma, Shiva or Laxshmi. Is the name before Sampradayam is the process of surrender and cronologically...historically the other groups are brake-off groups of the Sri Sampradayam and brake-off groups of each other. I have to admit I think we are coming to a middle ground on a good comprimise on the web pages for the Vaishnava page and the saranagati page. I will still put some more info. on the Sri Vaishnava section, some pictures eventually....and that will be it for my editting. —Preceding Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA comment added by 71.107.60.75 (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If dharana is a more accurate term then I agree we should go with that over dhyana. Personally I see all four sampradayas as equally valid and regularly visit a Sri Vaishnava temple without experiencing any feelings of sectarianism. In terms of middle-ground, the article is reading okay to me at the moment and would welcome more improvements. Best wishes, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

GaurangaUK: rv justification?

Gaurangaji, can you justify your reverts? My reasons for edits: 1. ISKCON was founded 41, not 50 years ago, so 'forty' makes more sense. 2. 'Tilak' redirects to 'tilaka', should be wikified. 3. ISKCON/Sarasvata tilak differs from tilaks of other GV lineages and this should be mentioned. Haribol. Jan 82.208.2.214 09:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Haribol Jan, I've addressed point 1 just now in a re-edit. In terms of tilak, I've gone with the version as it is generally pronounced (without the final a), and think that one link at the start of the para is probably sufficient, without linking the phrase multiple times. Point 3 is getting into too much specific detail in my opinion, I've changed the descriptionto try and accomodate the fact it is just one example. Hope it reads better now. Hare Krsna, ys Gouranga(UK) (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ISKON SLANT

Frankly, I think this entire article needs to be rewritten. There is too much of an Iskcon/Gaudiya Vaishnava slant and this is not completely representative of Vaishnavism. Also, there are large sections dedicated to relatively small issues in Vaishnavism like tilak. Tilak is not a big deal and is not what Vaishnavism is all about. What Vaishnavism is all about is a religious tradition of India in which Vishnu is the primary deity. An encyclopaedic article on this tradition ought to discuss the history of it, its core beliefs, how many people adhere/subscribe to it, and so on. Of course there are different traditions of Vaishnavism which can also be described along with their particular details in brief, but there is far too much sectarian slant in this article.

For example, the reference to Chaitanya Caritamrta is totally out of place in an article like this. Also the section on the four Vaishnava sampradayas, can this information be traced to a reliable source? But just in any case, the article needs to be rewritten or reorganised. It has certainly improved a lot the last time I saw it (some months ago), this is the organic process by which Wikipedia is improved, several Wikipedians workig in a collegial manner to improve the quality of the article. Ekantik ^talk 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ekantik, I agree that the tilak section is rather out of proportion in size to the other sections (and am not sure how it became that way?) however, in future if the article grows, I'm hoping that it will eventually balance off when more detail is added. I think that re-writing the entire article would be a bit drastic, as it is not grossly giving a Gaudiya specific point of view that I am aware of. Maybe we need additional quotations from other Vaishnava traditions to get a better balance? I've attempted to re-word where the quotation is given from the Chaitanya Charitamrita. It's relevant, but is specific, and that should have been pointed out.

In terms of the four sampradayas, I understand that they are mentioned directly in the Padma Purana, and have found this quote from a scholar on ISKCON ICJ site...

"A text from the Padma Purana quoted widely in Vaisnava writings speaks directly about these authorised communities. It says that 'Those mantras which are not received within a sampradaya are fruitless; they have no potency'. The text then specifically names the sampradayas. 'In the Kali-yuga, there will be four sampradayas.' ― we are talking about Vaisnava sampradayas­ ― 'They are the Brahma Sampradaya, originating with Brahma; Sri Sampradaya, starting with Laksmi; Rudra Sampradaya, starting with Siva; there's another one starting from Sanaka and the others, the Kumaras'. Those are the four recognised Vaisnava sampradayas." [5]

This webpage also contains similar info, and might come in useful for building the page up in future edits?

• Vaishnavism (religiousfacts.com)

It seems to read well, if not as detailed as a published text on the subject. Ideally we need some more concrete sources to take it further? Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for replying nicely. I was half-scared that I would be attacked by some editors but I thanks you for your nice response and for answering my question about 4 sampradayas, etc. I will definitely help out with this article when I get some time, by finding some good sources on the subject, etc. Ekantik ^talk 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ekantik, I absolutely agree with all the points you made, especially with the ISKON/Gaudiya book the Caitanya Charitamrita and the ISKON/Gaudiya slant to the page.I am going to give this Padma Purana quote of the four sampradayams to a noted Sri Sampradayam scholar. He is a revered and actual Pandit. I have argued back and forth with is ISKON devotee Gouranga, on many of the points that you have made. One point that REALLY bothers me, is that he put some VERY Notorious ISKON people in the western scholar section. I know people personally who know these "Scholar"....and the stories they told me will scar the mind! I was absolutely shocked that he listed them. These ISKON/Gaudiya people have a strangle hold on the web. I am also considering taking this to the Civil liberties Union here in the USA. I think that their help will bring about some changes here on this page. I agree This webpage must be re-written, and this cult ISKON slant must be delt with. This Gouranga person thinks he is the web-master of this page. Any qoutes from any ISKON source must be scrutenized throughly by Actual, trainned, Indian Pandits. They are telling things to the public that should be questioned in many cases. There are a number of other Sri Sampradayam Pandits that we can talk to about scriptural references. Another main consern is that these ISKON/Gaudiya matha/Gaudiya Sampra. people think that they are the champions or spokespeople of the Vedas and Hinduism. And, this is NOT the case. Many in the Hindu community do not like them and feel that they are a fanatical,fringe group. I live in the Los Angeles area and they have a not-so-good reputation here, because of the history at the temple in culver city. Some of their beliefs are contrary to The Vedas. I am also sorry, if in past comments I appear to be attacking...but, I am not. I had to fight to put the little bit of the Sri Samprad. info in here. these ISKON/Gaudiya people are very haughty. Thinking that they have moral superiority over others in the Hindu community. And, in many case, they dont uphold many original vedic principles, customs, procedures and a majority of the original Vedic scriptures. So how can they be purvayors of Vedic Civilization, when they dont really uphold alot of vedic things? Many Sri Sampradayam Brahmanas will atest to that. Sincerely.Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 17:08, 3 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Govinda Ramanuja dasa, do you also agree to the point where Ekantik gives thanks for the polite reply? Please note that this is an encyclopedia and keep all discussions relevant to actual page content. If I make a lot of edits to this page it's because I actually care about, as I assume you do also. Your personal feelings in regards to ISKCON are irrelvant, as are mine. What is important is page content. Please see me as a fellow editor in Wikipedia, rather than some assumed ISKCON badge wearer. Best regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but, the history and notority of ISKON must be taken in account. And, it is very relevant to the page, especially when it has such an ISKON slant to it. If it is irrelvant, there wouldnt be opposition from the other people who have made comments about you and how this page has a definite ISKON slant. If it is irrelevant, there wouldnt be so much opposition in the hindu community. When you make edits; it is with an ISKON preaching/superior slant and with a ISKON "We know better than you" attitude. There has to be some kind of third party person at Wikipedia that could mediate between editors.From here on out, for the sake of the page and for a non-bias essence to the page; I will consider every one as a fellow editor trying to bring Vedic truth to people.Sincerely Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 12:31, 5 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)

Before that angle jiggers the article: please leave "vedic truth" out of this. Vaishnavism is post-Vedic and almost entirely Puranic. The only exception might be the Vaikhanasas, but they're marginalized. As for an ISKCON slant, it would help if you made a list of the places where you think this has happened. Simply tagging the article as POV and then ranting on the talk page will not do. This is not a discussion forum for Vaishnava politics. This talk page is strictly for the content of the article. Anything else is off-topic. rudra (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rudra, you are right about the fact that Vaishnavism is a Post-Vedic, Puranic movement is the truth. When I wrote "vedic truth", I meant following the four vedas, the upanishads, the sattvic puranas and etc;i.e. the principles laid out within these shastras. I agree with what you wrote and maybe I should have stated that earlier. If it seems that I have been ranting, I am sorry, it will do. I had to be this way in order to put the little bit of Sri Vaishnavism on this article. And, EVERY thing that I have written is in context with the article. As for "Vaishnava politics", every thing that I have written about the absolute ISKON bias on this page originally was valid. And it seems that others have been commenting on this ISKON slant also...not only me. A matter fact...is seem about 3 other people have noticed this. And tagging the article POV...had to be done, period. It should have been done along time ago. I know how they operate. They use things like this as a means of "preaching" to people, instead of just giving information freely without trying to recruit. ISKON's motives, tactics, character and history have to be taken in to cosideration; especially when you have one of them is trying to control the whole article and not let in information about other Vaishnava groups. Their are others on here who had to do the same thing to a certain extent for their Vaishnava groups information. In trying to bring just a little bit useful information and fact about other Vaishnava groups and the ISKON strangle hold on this article,...I dont think it is "off topic" at all. Namaskar.Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 12:31, 21 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)

After accidently reading a number of other articles related to Vaishnavism on Wikipedia, I was amazed to find that not only this article, but, a number of other article are absolutely slanted towards the ISKON/Gaudiya group. Out of not knowing, I thought that ONLY this article was tinged and slanted with ISKON. It is amazing to find that the Bhagavata purana and others are very slanted towards ISKON. I believe that this Vaishnava article is just a SPRING-BOARD for other ISKON/Gaudiya articles. I will be contacting Wikipedia within the next couple of days to discuss this issue.Namaskar.Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 18:51, 23 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)

Vaishnava-Sahajiya

The following should be included in this article because it shows particular tantric elements in vaishnavism and the information cited is sourced from the Encyclopedia Brittanica: The Vaishnava-Sahajiya is a tantric Hindu cult that originated in Bengal from the 17th Century. The Vaishnava-Sahajiya sought religious experience through the five senses which included human coupling and sexual love. Sahaja (Sanskrit: “easy” or “natural”) as a system of worship was prevalent in the Tantric traditions common to both Hinduism and Buddhism in Bengal as early as the 8th–9th centuries. The divine relationship between Krishna and Radha (guises of the divine masculine and divine feminine) were celebrated by the poets Candidas, Jayadeva and Vidyapati whose works parallel the rasa or "divine mood" of human love and divine love; which was later explored by Chaitanya albeit in less overtly sexual practices. The Vaisnava-Sahajiya coterie is a synthesis and complex of these various traditions. The Vaisnava-Sahajiyas due to their sexual tantric practices were perceived with marked disdain by other religious communities and operated in secrecy. In their literature they deliberately employed an encrypted and enigmatic style. Because of the necessity of privacy and secrecy, little is definitively known about their prevalence or practices.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:B9 hummingbird hovering, 10:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC).

This article deals with the generic details of Vaishnavism, covering core beliefs and the main schools. The Vaisnava-Sahajiya you mention above is a minority group which shares more in common with other Tantric schools than with the main sampradays of Vaishnavism. Details concerning particular Vaishnava schools are all given on seperate pages, and I see no reason to break that trend in regards to this belief? On these grounds I have moved the paragraph to the 'Sahaja' article.Gouranga(UK) 14:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vaishnavism and Tantra intersected and influenced each other throughought history. If I was required to define my spiritual tradition, Dharma, Tantra and Vaishnavism (amongst other elements) would be in the response. Tantra and Vaishnavism are not mutually exclusive. For you Gauranga, they may be, but for other Vaishnavas, like myself, they are not. Tantra entails a different "view" and techniques, not a different philosophy or practice. Tantric Vaishnavism is appropriate on the Vaishnava page as it demonstrates variation and difference. All Hinduism has been iterated by the Tantric 'view' (Sanskrit: drishti). Stop the exclusivity and separatism, inclusion is key. If we do not endeavour to understand the Other and integrate difference, our Shadow (psychology) rules us, and the Monkey on a Stick syndrome will continue. This article has no historical dimension which is a fundamental flaw. A historical view will demonstrate how the different Dharmic and non-Dharmic Traditions entered dialogue within the cultural cauldron. Be mindful that traditions are not monolithic, as part of the Human Condition they have evolved over millenia and demonstrate marked variations in time, place and circumstance.
Svaha
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This page has an insidious ISKCON bias and demonstrates no historical context nor development and lacks information about cultural contact and geographic dissemination. I have endeavoured to introduce Tantric Vaishnavism on the page and have met with fervent, uniformed dogmatism. I would appreciate assistance in progressing the historical context and development of the Vaishnavism page. Request also posted on Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board.

Aum Sri Mangala

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)}

Tantric Literature And Gaudiya Vaishnavism BY SWAMI B.V. TRIPURARI

My comments are identical to those made on July 9th above. This should not be included in such detail within the main Vaishnavism article. Details concerning particular Vaishnava schools are all given on seperate pages, and I see no reason to break that trend in regards to this belief? On these grounds I had moved the paragraph in July last year to the 'Sahaja' article. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S, This B.V. Tripurari Swami link is a good one, although the tantra it mentions is not the same as the tantra in the article. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

GaurangaUK

First, Vaishnava means...devotee of VISHNU, not vibhava forms of His. Vaishnava's believe that the Four armed NARAYANA in VAIKUNTA, not His Krishna form in Vrindavana is the Ultimate Abode. Maybe it would be better to call yourselves Krishnavas.Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 12:31,5 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I and my tradition are Vaishnava and Vaishnavism by definition. Do not move or bury my contents to this talk page. Altering content that is not your own is dishonest and inapproptiate. I would like my inclusions to this talk page to be evident according to entry date and where I post them as is standard. I am more than happy to enter into a working relationship with you to ensure that the Vaishnavism page shows an even weight as per your reservation. I am endeavouring to progress a historical and geographical context to this page as it is currently one dimensional. Deleting the section on Vaishnava-Sahajiya does not further transparency nor the laudable Wikipedia endeavour of mapping human knowledge in its entirety.
Ah
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As this was part of a debate from July last year I had simply moved the comments together. Please be WP:CIVIL. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Vaishnava-Sahajiya

The Vaishnava-Sahajiya is a form of tantric Vaishnavism that originated in Bengal from the 17th century. Vaishnava-Sahajiya is generally considered as a 'left-handed path' (Sanskrit: vāmācāra) and 'heterodox' (Sanskrit: nāstika) to vedic injunction, though this is only a cosmetic understanding. The Vaishnava-Sahajiya sought religious experience through the five senses which included human coupling and sexual love. Sahaja (Sanskrit: “easy” or “natural”) as a system of worship was prevalent in the Tantric traditions common to both Hinduism and Buddhism in Bengal as early as the 8th–9th centuries. "Sahaja" was evident in the teachings and poetry of Mahasiddha Saraha (c.8th century CE, Bengal, Nalanda). The divine relationship between Krishna and Radha (guises of the divine masculine and divine feminine) were celebrated by other poets such as Candidas (15th century CE, Bengal), Jayadeva (c1200 CE, Orissa) and Vidyapati (c1352 – c1448, Bihar), whose works parallel the rasa or "divine mood" of human love and divine love; which was later explored by Chaitanya (1486 - 1533 CE, Bengal, Orissa), albeit in less overtly sexual practices. The Vaisnava-Sahajiya coterie is a synthesis and complex of these various traditions. The Vaisnava-Sahajiyas due to their sexual tantric practices were perceived with marked disdain by other religious communities and operated in secrecy. In their literature they deliberately employed an encrypted and enigmatic style of substitutions and correspondences that has come to be known the Twilight Language (Sanskrit: saṃdhyā-bhāṣā), iconic of all permutations of Tantra. Because of the necessity of privacy and secrecy, little is definitively known about their prevalence or practices.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

By definition, Vaisnava-Sahajiya is as much Vaishnavism as is Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I venture that a historical and geographical exploration of Vaishnavism will repair the marked oversights in the scholarship evident within this page. Historically, the sampradayas are not so discrete and distinct.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd disagree, as would most orthodox Vaishnavas. However within the purpose of Wikipedia you are at least, correct on this point. I have added a link to Vaisnava-Sahajiya within the other braches section in the article. And as the main article was largely barren, I have combined the details you added here, with what was there already. I still don't see why this particular sect should have a detailed explanation within the main Vaishnava article. All of the main braches of Vaishnavism are all dealt with on their own specific pages. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well to progress this impasse, may we work together to write a paragraph or two for each sampradaya for inclusion within the Vaishnavism article proper, contextualising both orthodox and unauthodox, to chart their commonality and difference? This should include what the traditions have to say about themselves as well as what scholarship has to say. Historical context and locale is required. Even key figures should be mentioned. I would like to see the Vaishnava page showcase the traditions of Vishnu and Lakshmi and associated incarnations, manifestations and avatars, not just be a cursory introduction with all the real discussion happening in separate pages. By the way, everything is not quite as it seems in relation to my talk page.

I am frequently misunderstood but I have demonstrated my intentionality as a good faith editor. My practice is neither orthodox nor heterodox to Vedic injunction, but is nondual. Though I honour and have integrated a Vedic view into my sadhana. Sensuality or sensate phenomena is the only way we may enagage the divine other than by divine grace. This is the "natural" of sahajiya. I am excited about finding, exploring and working within, a mutually informing, common ground.

Harihara

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is not enough space to discuss all of the braches and schools in depth here. Why not explore things on seperate articles? Also please note that worship of Tulsi and Saligram is in no way a form of pantheism. Not more than other forms of murti or deity worship. Please discuss any additions here first and then we can go through it together. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We have all the space we need. Why economise unnecessarily? What space limit is there GaurangaUK? All that is required is becoming spatious in perception and orientation...that is oriented to aether! That was my error, I revised pantheism to animism. But the debate is open as to whether it is one, either or both.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your tact, please discuss any deletions you make to material I edit on the talk page prior to actioning so we may work through it together. I would appreciate it if you could add citations to non-ISKCON material and sources whenever possible.

Aum

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You leave me little choice. You cannot simply add whatever you want and then put the responsibility on others to fix it. That's hardly a fair way to work. You havn't given any arguments at all so far. Or shown any attempt at compromise. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Gouranga(UK). This article is not the place for an in-depth exposition of Sahajiya. By WP:UNDUE, it doesn't merit much more than a passing mention, and of course, a clear link to its own article. Given that Vaishnavism is a vast subject, with more than one mainstream sampradaya worth its own article, it's pretty clear that this article should be converted to WP:SS. rudra (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And as for "historical dimension", I fear that could become a contentious subject in its own right (considering how some "think" that this goes back to the preceramic neolithic). rudra (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fear is the key to your comment. Be fearless! It is exactly this contention and difference which should be documented and cited within this article. This dishwater homogeny passing for scholarship is reprehensible. No historical,geographical, doctrinal difference nor lineage transmission is discussed in this article. Apalling.

Ah

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)]

Dear B9,

I have never had to resort to that in over two years of regular editing. I apologise if I was somewhat brash in making the initial revert without a fully detailed explanation, but in fairness you had added a large amount of controversial and unsourced material to this article without any prior discussion.

Taking your points in turn:

• Vaishnavism takes it's name from the worship of Vishnu.That is what distinguishes it from other traditions of Hinduism. Different Vaishnava sampradyas have slightly different viewpoints in regards to Vishnu's consort Lakshmi, so in order for the introduction to read universally and correctly it is better to mention Lakshmi further on in the article. Neither are Vishnu or Lakshmi considered as devas (in the common sense) within Vaishnavism. Within Vaishnava theology devas is used to refer to 'lower' beings than Vishnu himself, such as Brahma, or Indra.

• You are correct that parts of Vaishnavism could be classed as animistic, and so I have included that in the intro. But that does not apply in the case of Tulsi and Saligrama. It is general Hindu belief that all living beings (including plants) have souls, and Saligrama are believed to be a form of self-manifested murthi, and not just an ordinary stone, so I have taken those links out.

• Your other additions to the introduction in regards to Moslems and tantric influences are unsourced, and highly speculative. To me it clearly reads as WP:OR.

• Adding a general description of Vaishnava-sahajia in the history section is both irrelevant to the paragraph (it is not an historical description), neither is it sourced, and again, certain parts read to me as WP:OR. - Having removed some elements from this I have added the information to the Vaisnava-Sahajiya article, which was no more than a stub, and requires to be expanded further. I did not delete the material, I simply moved it to a more appropriate place. Seeing Rudra's comments above, I see that he also agrees with this line of thought.

Sincere best wishes, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Vaisnava-Sahajiya should probably not be covered in this main article. It is a tiny minority sect and reliable sources indicate that almost nothing is known about the group's current membership or practices. We should only report what reputable references states in proportion and we should avoid giving undue weight to extreme minorities in broader topics. Vassyana (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is valued

In my opinion, the key and point of entry to the abovementioned opinion is "probably". Gambling with an indecisive and unsure opinion is decidedly un-Vedic. As a team, lets aim for a more constructive and inclusive presentation of scholarship in this article in homologue with that which has been represented in the Mindstream article. Your opinion is valued. So that this contention is explored in a manner that is balanced and representative of the Wikipedian community and according to the bastion of sholarly 'Ivory Tower' endeavour in particular, I am in the process of opening this debate to a poll. BTW, the size or number of followers of a tradition does not betoken its quality nor authenticity. Similarly, volume of adherents in a tradition does not, in and of itself, posit validity. Moreover, the intention of that Wikipedia guideline of not foregrounding a minority view, is not contravened by including the information respectully within the auspice of an article. To interpret the policy in that manner would stifle and quash scholarly dissent as well as the exploration of difference and variation ~ which if you are not a closed-minded 'fanatacist', are the truly fascinating and interesting aspects of any human endeavour or knowledge. The voice and content of this article at the moment represents that of practitioners (and principally that of the modern ISKCON development of Gaudiya Vaishnavism through the eyes, realisation and interpretation of Prabhupada and adherents of the that tradition, which is not representative of Vaishnavism: as I stated previously, a significant lack of scholarship is missing as well as historical and geographical context charting differences and commonalities. Remember, the final Wikipedia guideline that qualifies that to which you make mention and trumps all others, is to break all the rules and that is only possible once you know the rules (while honoring Absolute values: refer Two Truths). That succinctly, IS Tantra.
Svaha
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear B9, I've had to revert your edits as they go against the concensus of editors discussing on this page. Three editors all agree that Tantra should be discussed elsewhere and that a link was enough. Also please keept your comments to specific article content. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

GaurangaUK, I have not given you leave to contract my name and refer to me in a diminutive. Do not take that liberty unbidden, it is simply disrespectful. I will continue to revert and ensure that the cited material is in this article and am making a point of finding more journal articles on Tantric Vaishnavism to enrich the voice, content, register and thereby, the quality of this article. I intuit that the other people supporting your view are also affiliated with ISKCON. Now that is a minority perspective being showcased and expounded as consensus. That is the argument you are using for not including the Tantric view within this article: simply a psychological projection of fear upon the Other. Read Edward Said. Religious intolerance and misinformation will not be perpetuated nor tolerated. Tantric Vaishnavism is as much Vaishnavism as are the Four orthodox Sampradayas.

Ah

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear B9, you are taking everything far too personally and your edits are becoming disruptive. "We should avoid giving undue weight to extreme minorities in broader topics" that is the answer from the third party you requested. So why keep adding information on Tantric practices? I see that you have now also deleted a whole host of information almost as an act of definance. I can't believe that you are doing this to be constructive, you are simply looking to bully your way into having the information you want on this page. You really believe that all of the other editors on this page are in some way connected to ISKCON? Could it not just be that your viewpoint is not a common one? Please calm down and discuss things rationally or we will get no-where.

In reply to your comment Religious intolerance and misinformation will not be perpetuated nor tolerated. Tantric Vaishnavism is as much Vaishnavism as are the Four orthodox Sampradayas. - Please note that although in your opinion this may be true, we cannot give undue weight to a smaller sect, over and above the four main sampradayas. There is a link within the article, as there is with the other sampradayas. Why give special treatment to a minority viewpoint? It is not intolerance, it is simply commonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GourangaUK (talk • contribs) 20:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, it is not correct to add paragraphs such as the one below (with click here links) into an encyclopedic article, surely you can see this?:

For a high level visual map that charts the relationship, development and history of Hindu sects click here. For a list of contributors who assisted in this document click here.

Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well instead of deleting cited contributions GaurangaUK, work towards ensuring content is compliant with wikipedia 'guidelines'. This is a collaborative forum for the mapping of human knowledge in its entirety. What is happening between us in relation to this page is competition. Are you open to the true possibility of collaboration through consultative processes? Because I am reacting to what I perceive as your dictatory manner. To meet your manner in kind and in order to be compliant with Wikipedia 'guidelines' I give you and other editors one calendar month's grace from the datestamp of this posting to ensure that all information on this article is duly cited, otherwise it will be deleted. This notification is a courtesy, I am in my rights according to policy to delete it now. In the next year I am going to make a point of bringing this article to feature status. It is my sincere hope that other editors with perspectives different to my own will work with me in ensuring this article contains a symphony of voices and is texturally rich.

Satchitananda

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Placed {{Refimprove|date=January 2008}} on the main page as per my previous posting in this conversation stream.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Humming Bird, I absolutely agree when you said "The voice and content of this article at the moment represents that of practitioners (and principally that of the modern ISKCON development of Gaudiya Vaishnavism through the eyes, realisation and interpretation of Prabhupada and adherents of the that tradition, which is not representative of Vaishnavism".It has to be said, that ISKON and Gaudiya Sampradayam are brake-off groups of brake-off groups of the original vedic-Vaishnavism. This GaurugaUk and ISKON/Gaudiya groups DO NOT represent all Vaishnavism. And, they DO NOT represent Hinduism and the Vedic Religion. Many of their beliefs and principles are not vedically supported and are Speculations and Concoctions of the original Vedic-Vaishnavism. We must put pressure on Wikipedia to help us or take this matter to the ACLU...period. This GaurugaUK thinks he is the web-master! His strangle hold on this web-page must come to an end. Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 22:41, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Dear Prabhuji, please note that this talk page not a forum for us to air general grievances. Which areas of the article do you think need to be improved upon, added to or subtracted? Best wishes, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Swamiji, please note;YOU ARE NOT the web master or the page monitor. Who are you? And, these things need to be discussed. You keep on changing things that other editors and myself have done. Who gave you the authority to do this. In the next week, I will be notifying wikipedia of this AGAIN, for the FORTH time. If they dont do any thing about this...about you. I will be notifying the ACLU here in Los Angeles for their help. P.S. LEAVE MY CHANGES ALONE!Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)