Talk:Bhakti/Archive 1

Archive 1

Brahman realisation and Bhagavat Purana

I removed what I considered to be a POV comment from the section on Brahman section. The previous statement made the claim that because there are references to very few persons reaching the realisations of Sukadeva, this must thus be the highest level of realisation. This is a POV of comment, and opposing views could be put forward using the Bhagavat Purana as evidence. Not wanting to get into a theological debate over this, I think it's fair enough to remove that comment.202.89.50.10 00:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

Having just read through this page again, I kind of feel that this article almost needs a complete re-write. Firstly, because of the flow on nature of this article, in order to change any one of the various POV statements that are present throughout, practically every other section would need to be altered as well. Secondly, there seems to be alot of information in here which contradicts basic concepts mentioned in the Bhakti scriptures. For example, the concept that one can worship any form they want and get the same results through bhakti is actually directly opposed by Krishna in the Bhagavadgita (9.25. There are different schools which claim to be following the Bhakti movement, some with less fidelity to the Bhakti-sastra's. However, at the moment this article hardly accomodates for any of them. I would like to invite discussions on how we can better portray the real situation of the Bhakti movement. Otherwise, if there are no complaints, I'll start a major overhaul of this page.Vidyapati dasa 02:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Vidyapati, I am willing to work with you on a re-write. It sounds like a very good idea - as long as we include all points of view: namely devotional, scholarly & historical etc... I will ask to see if anyone else is interested also. It might be an idea to re-build the article in a sandbox first (see User:GourangaUK/sandbox), and then transplant here when everyone is happy with it? Best wishes, ys GourangaUK 08:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the article today by adding in a new introduction. I do feel that a full re-write is required to get the rest of the article up to scratch. The majority of information is either POV or non-encyclopedic in nature - please contibute to the sandbox, or article if anyone has any ideas. Best Wishes, GourangaUK 08:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

One point to note in the article is the last scentence in the Introduction. The use of the words "unnecessary rituals", is misplaced in the concept of Hinduism. Rituals are not unnecessary but should not be exaggerated. While, rituals hold their own importance in Hinduism, the reason and menaing is often unknow which leads to the convenient assumption that they do not hold any value. Sri Adi Shankaracharya laid emphasis on Kharma kandas with appropriate Jnana but never played down the importance of rituals.

I agree, I think think the addition of "unnecessary" before "ritual" wasn't in the source material but was an editorial comment added somewhere along the way. Priyanath ^talk 15:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing Japanese

What was the point of removing the Japanese transliteration of Bhakti? Siyavash 00:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I removed it in error - just replaced it now. Some of the text had gone into a grey text box much wider than the viewable page and there was a blank space at the top of the article - so I was just fixing those. Cheers, GourangaUK 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, no problem, thanks for replacing :) Siyavash 11:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Proponents of Bhakti

I believe this is a useful list to have, but do not see a purpose in having masses of entries, many of which are not primarily related to bhakti traditions, being more general Vedanta or Hinduism related links (i.e. Adi Shankara) or are not specific persons (Legend of Dhruv). Maybe 3 or 4 of the most relevant could be added to the current list? Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 11:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Bhakti and Bhakti yoga

What is the difference between bhakti and Bhakti yoga? Kkrystian 11:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just clarified the difference in the introduction - Bhakti means devotion, wheras Bhakti-yoga is the practice or process of cultivating devotion. Best wishes, Gouranga(UK) 20:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidas' edits

I just noticed the recent edits by Wikidas on the article (since reverted by Priyanath) and looked up the source on Google books. As far as I can see the edits are not exactly supported by the source, or at best, don't provide the due context. They also seem to be undue in the section they are being placed. Can we discuss theme here instead of edit-warring ? Abecedare (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. As per my message on your talk page. Thanks. Wikidās ॐ 06:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikidas, I am amazed at the chutzpah ! You post this message against edit-warring after you re-added the disputed content that misrepresents the cited sources, and make OR changes to sourced content. I have reverted your edit. Please discuss and gain consensus before making further edits to this article. Since you have a long history of misrepresenting sources on wikipedia, continue to do so here is not advisable. Abecedare (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked the source, I see the following problems:

In accordance with traditional Vaisnava views in Kali yuga bhakti should prevail unlike a Vedic practices of yajna. In one passage, the Bhagavat Purana even says that in Kali yuga the Vedas, symbolized by the Garuda, do not shine.^{How is this relevant here? Seems out of context} However ^{see Avoiding however} in another place it confirms that Vedas enjoin both sacrifice, ascetism and devotion, placing devotional element of worship routed in the Vedas.^{cannot find in citation, seems WP:SYNTH. Also on p.117, devotion is used in the context of nivrtta dharma, and not related to bhakti}

--Nvineeth (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the user's past conduct: see this and this for detailed analysis of similar misrepresentation of sources and adding of irrelevant sources. If this conduct continues an RFC and a topic ban may be warranted. Abecedare (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am generally follow sources almost word for word. Clearly you can follow on and edit on. Adding a clarification as in above does not deviate from the source. Are you guys follow as me almost word for word? There is no need for threats. Yes devotion is used in the context of nivritta dhama, so is bhakti. What is your point? Traditional view of Bhagavatam should not be reflected in the article... because... because you do not want to.

If you point out a particular point of view that you do not want to be represented in this article, please discuss it below. Can you read or not. If you type the source and what I have said you will see I went almost verbatim. It is practically a quote of primary source quoted in the secondary source. Did you look up primary? Wikidās ॐ 07:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikidas, don't raise a strawman - no one is objecting to one or the other POV. What we are objecting to is (example edit [1]):

• Addition of irrelevant/misplaced content and sources.
• Misrepresentation/misquotation of sources.
• OR changes to sourced content
• Edit-warring, even after being asked to discuss instead.

The most problematic part is that you have been warned for exactly such behaviour more than a year back, and yet the disruption has continued. Therefore please do consider this issue seriously; see ARBCOM's view of conduct similar to yours: Accuracy of sourcing, and Problematic editing, which lead to a topic ban and severe editing restrictions. Abecedare (talk) 07:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not edit warred after I was asked to discuss, that would be a lie to suggest. In fact it was the other editor who broke the 3rr and did not bother comment here (and you did not bother to warn him). A year ago I did not go word-for-word on the source and now I do. You are welcome to go closer to the sources but that would be a copyvio in my view. I am not going to comment here anymore unless you can list below POV that you object to be represented as seems to be the background reason. All material I added is relevant and presents a traditional view on how Bhagavatam sees bhakti related to the Vedas. I do not quote sources -- but I type very very close to them, there must be a reason you do not want to see that. I have no objection to you last revert. Wikidās ॐ 07:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"I did not edit warred after I was asked to discuss, that would be a lie to suggest." Here is the evidence:

• My request to discuss instead of edit-warring, 5:50 UTC
• Your continued, edit-warrin. 6:10 and 6:13 UTC.

Now I'll AGF and accept the slim possibility that you did not see the message, and let this pass. Lets move on and be more careful from now on. Abecedare (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the calm discussion while I was gone. Rather than simply reverting the misrepresented reference, I should have reverted and also discussed here. I'll also assume good faith and accept that the misuse of references was unintentional. It was also undue weight and cherry-picked, even if it had been accurate. This article needs to represent mainstream academic views. Previously, it was used to promote the views of a particular sect. I'll add more below. Priyanath ^talk 15:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

POVs not to be represented in the article

Please list below POV that you prefer to be excluded from the article (include a reason if you can). Wikidās ॐ 07:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia are not for promoting POVs, but for discussing mainstream academic discussion on the subject. The changes to the article are the consensus of several leading academics on the subject of bhakti, by neutral, third-party academics at that. There is no longer any cherry-picking of references to promote a certain POV, which is where the article had been for a few years. Read the academic literature on the subject and you'll see that the article is being treated much more evenly, and in keeping with the broader view of academia and Hinduism. Priyanath ^talk 15:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a mistaken view that if source is not neutral to a school it should not be used. However it is not so. Sources of this kind should be balanced and included if they are reliable, but should not be used undue. Often academic sources are also not-balanced, so the balance should be maintained for all major sources that are reliable and all views should be represented. You were not specific, but I suggest views of major bhakti movements should be represented. Wikidās ॐ 17:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a section on major bhakti movements should be included as a separate section. For the rest of the article, the broadest and universal views should be the rule, and not the narrow sectarian 'views' of certain sects. The views of any subsect of a particular school of a just one religion is undue. That's why reliable, neutral, third-party sources are needed. Read reliable academic sources on the subject, and you'll see this is just how they treat it: broad overview, and sections on the main movements. Even the main movements are covered more broadly and generally, and not with a view toward pushing what certain sects within Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism believe, for example. Bhakti is a huge, significant, and very broad subject, with adherents of many faiths, sects, schools, and religions. An encyclopedic article needs to cover it in that way. There will be room for the different ways that the main schools view bhakti in that section. Priyanath ^talk 21:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Bhakti in Non Hindu sects

Reading the current version of the article, one feels that Bhakti is limited only to Hinduism, while it is not. Bhakti also exists in other religions--Islam and Sikhism as well ( [2] ). Also we can incorporate several important parallels b/w Bhakti and Sufism. --Nvineeth (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I was thinking of a section that would show how different schools in Hinduism (Saivas, Vaishnavas, Shaktis) express Bhakti, so maybe it could be part of that section? Jains also, and I even see some academic references to "Christian Bhakti". Priyanath ^talk 18:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

guru-bhakti

in the context of broadening the definition and the scope to incl other hindu related traditions, I would suggest adding some reference and description of guru-bhakti as it is quite essential in many traditions and specifically bhakti is not only towards a deity. any thoughts on this one? Wikidās ॐ 16:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I think one sentence in the lead, right after the first sentence, such as "It also refers to the devotion of the disciple for the Guru, or guru-bhakti." - and then have a section in the article on Guru-bhakti. There are plenty of reliable sources. I also see the need for a section where different schools of bhakti are described, using the broadest resources and sources for each school. And I want to keep urging everyone to use neutral third-party sources whenever possible, rather than those of particular schools. Priyanath ^talk 17:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Overly long See Also

What do people think about taking all the names of famous bhakti teachers and proponents from the See Also section, and moving them to List of Bhakti proponents? As it stands now, anything relevant in the See Also section is lost amidst all the names and dates. Priyanath ^talk 17:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can move to a new article OR the categorization will take care of itself. Ideally, we should the article such that the relevant articles in see also are covered in the main body. The bhakti movement article can give a broad overview covering the relevant teachers and movements. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that, Bhakti movement already gives a overview of these teachers, so there is no need to have them here again. Most of the links in see also can be removed. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you both on the removal, but I think categorization of these names is enough, a list is not needed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories works for me. Priyanath ^talk 15:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nayanars and Alvars

Since the Nayanars lived about 200 years before the Alvars, they should be credited first. They were the pioneers. The sentence "Much like the Alvars, the Saiva Nayanar poets" may be changed as the Nayanars preceded Alavars. Thanks.--Sankarrukku (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll fix this when I can in the next day. Priyanath ^talk 15:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting. However would there be a reliable source to support this or is it OR, since some Alvars are quite "pre-historic"?Wikid^as© 17:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Then that would be an interesting addition to the article, that the Alvars were pre-historic. I never saw that in the sources that I was using - could you steer us toward a RS that has that history of the Alvars? Thanks, Priyanath ^talk 00:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

I removed the link 'http://www.jkp.org/devotion devotional bhakti' because it can be listed as an example under 'Bhakti movement'. By the way 'devotional bhakti' is a tautology. Andries 20:08, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Changed meaning from 'loving devotion to the supreme god' to 'devotion to god'. Could also perhaps be changed to just 'devotion'. Imc 12:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Refs

The additions on "Suddha-bhakti" (unreferenced) and "three stages of Bhakti" (referenced to : Sathya Sai Speaks. Sathya Sai Educational Trust. Prasanthinilayam, A.P. India) need a RS, they seem more on the side of OR. --Nvineeth (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that section - I found one or two other not-really-mainstream references, but it doesn't seem notable enough to include in this article, unless it's in the form of one sentence that says "according to x and y, there are three stages of bhakti, .....". But even that may be Undue. Just my opinion. Priyanath ^talk 03:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Did the same for the unreferenced section on Suddha-bhakta, though I appreciate Redheylin's efforts in moving/merging those sections from other articles. What this article really needs is a section on Schools. Priyanath ^talk 03:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)