Talk:Vithoba/Archive 2

The need for a positive definition.

What do you think of this idea Yogesh. It is important to define people positively, in terms of their own world view, rather than simply negatively as not Brahmin, or not white, or not "people like us", whoever we are. I don't know how we do that here, but sources (and you) might help us think of some good refinements. Alastair Haines

Alastair, (if you allow me to call you that, I assume it is your first name), you are right for the need to have a positive definition. I remember reading an atheist who wrote that she was not comfortable with negative descriptions of her faith. The writer Salunkhe's book on the Lokayat is titled Astik shiromani- Charvak. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know of any positive definition of non-Brahmanical, do you? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If possible we should translate this article into Marathi and have someone from the Varkari Shikshan Sanstha, Alandi review it. Or perhaps pass them the English original. Maybe I'll pass this on to a cousin of mine who passed from the IIT ages ago, is a brahmachari and a Varkari for over 25 years. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to translate this article, I would request you do that on Marathi wikipedia, at least a good article will be created there. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation into Marathi and review by a Vakari sound like excellent suggestions.

Regarding our reflections on non-Brahminical and what it might imply, I think there are other things we might be able to say.

I grew up in an Anglican church, but have preached in Baptist, Presbyterian, Uniting and other churches. Personally, I don't describe myself as being Anglican, Baptist or Presbyterian. Sometimes, when pushed, I'll describe myself as an Independent Christian, though I prefer Bible Christian. There are all sorts of categories, some political, others theological.

Theologically, Vithoba seems to me to be presented by this article as authentically Hindu, but associated with the Vakari Panth, which has traditions independent of mainstream Brahminical forms of worship.

Christianity is 2,000 years old with more than 30,000 denominations and a lot of complexity regarding politics and theology. Hinduism is at least 1,000 years older than Christianity, and as you commented, Yogesh, Hinduism is complex.

Non-Brahminical, independent of Brahminism, autochthonous religious movement, post-Vedic or any of a number of alternative descriptions of the Vakari Sampradaya could be possible. Our main need is that we can find our descriptions in reliable sources. And yes, ideally, in Hindu sources.

Would it hurt to include the description, Hindu, in the description of the Vakari? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have written I would like a Varkari to have a go at the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be nice to have a notable Varkari go through this article. Although, a Varkari may be offended by the "Origins and development" section, most Hindus believe our gods are time eternal - that section conflicts that belief. Then there is the digambar description in Iconography. See Wikipedia:Profanity for policy.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Alastair Haines, can you please dilute "The Pandharpur image is either digambar (naked), or dressed with a loin cloth, wrapped around the waist with a fold of the robe extending to the feet, through which the shape of genitals remains visible" more, possibly replacing genitals with an euphemism - eliminating the word not the theory that image is clothed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Back in a few hours. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, draft done. I've done a little tinkering with some of the other paragraphs also.

It is here at Vithoba#Iconography for your inspection. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cult

Should we not replace cult with sampradaya? Cult has a very negative contemporary connotation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cult (religious practice) is an expectable use of the word "cult". See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Religion. While "cult" with used with Varkari, - "Varkari cult", can be replaced by sect. When we talk of Vithoba's cult, "Vithoba's sect" seems a bit awkward. The repeated use of "Sampradaya" will introduce a non-English word (WP:JARGON) in the article unneccesarily.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sect may not be perfect, but much better than cult. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not have at least one mention as Varkari Sampradaya and then use an appropriate English translation of Sampradaya, sect translates better for panth, the article for panth has a link to Varkari Panth. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you. "Cult" and "sect" are negative in ordinary conversational English, but excellent technical words in academic writing: "cult" or "wiktionary:cultus" associate with ritual religion in a perfectly neutral way, "sect" refers more to the people involved with the "cult". Perhaps they are a bit like sampradaya and puja (traditions, rituals, cult) as opposed to panth and bhakti (way-of-life, lifestyle, devotion). But again, we're squeezing rich Indic words into ambiguous English glosses.

Tiger and I discussed this before, he's right that "cult" and "sect" are standard in reliable academic sources on religion. My objection was the same as yours Yogesh, many English-only readers could misinterpret things slightly negatively. But I think Tiger's work is so clearly neutral, reliable and technically precise that the context will educate readers to understand technical words they are not used to. There's a point at which any encyclopedia has to do this. I think Tiger's judgment is sound, but there are elements of differing taste. Perhaps, over time, more readers will give us feedback on the issue and we can refine things. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair you are right about one historical neutral meaning of the word cult, but the contemporary use is very much negative, I will try a Google search and display the results here. Even in the neutral sense, cult indicates exclusivity and fringe beliefs, is it a proper description for the Varkaris? Calling it a cult puts the Varkari in the league of the following, a list I got from the site top ten cults .

The church of Bible understanding.
The Mason family
Aum Shinrikyo
Restoration of the ten commandments
Raëlism
Scientology
Order of the solar temple.
Heaven's gate
Branch Davidians
Varkari (Interestingly top ten cults lists nine, so I have added Varkari, to put things in proper perspective). Alastair I liked another description of cults, it says, “Some people may consider all religions cults”. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes! Nice work showing the conversational English associations of the word cult. And "yes" again, cult in this sense is absolutely inappropriate to the Vakari. Unique, distinctive and independent they may be, but they are absolutely "true-blue" Hindus by almost any common-sense Hindu standard (not that I'm even close to being a friend of a friend of any authority on the subject, unless I can count you as providing me with such a connection, Yogesh;).

But wiktionary:sect is related to wiktionary:section and, in the academic terminology of comparative religion, to designate a sub-set or section of a religious tradition as a "sect" is a precise and neutral phrasing of a classification hypothesis.

My taste accords somewhat with yours here, Yogesh, but I admire Tiger's bold and correct usage of the formal terminology. I think we really need the opinions of more people before we can make a final decision on this particular matter. Do you think it's worth posting a request at a WikiProject page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion? Alastair Haines (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are referring to what a lay reader would start thinking, not a theologian or an academician, when he reads that Varkari is a cult. Cult would conjure images of secret worship, macabre acts of initiation, doomsday predictions, all sorts of abuse of disciples, trouble with the law, etc. This is not a presentation at a theological conference. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an encyclopedia, though (and it's not my wording). Context doesn't suggest those other things. Let's ask for more opinions, I'm not sure Tiger, you or I need to change our opinions, and the issues won't change. More voices are the best way to break this deadlock. It's mainly a style thing, the perfect kind of issue for a vote. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]