Talk:Bhagavata Purana/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Bhagavata Purana. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

To do list

Here is how I suggest we can structure the article:

0. Lead
1. Significance (in Vaishnavism)
2. Origins and dating
3. Place in canon

Contrast with Vedas (recitation vs performance; sruti vs smriti)
Contrast with Puranas (pancalaksna, dasalaksana)
Listing as Mahapurana;
Relation with BG, Vishnu Purana, Harivamsa and Devi Bhagvatam

4. Text and language

13216/16,256/18,000 verses by various counts;
archaic "Vedic" Sanskrit;
verse meter etc
narrator(s)

5. Philosophy

emphasis on bhakti
relation with Samkhya, Advaita philosophies
contrast with Vedic brahmanism

6. Content

A paragraph (or shorter) length description of each canto

7. Cultural and social significance

In poetry, drama, literature, arts etc
De-emphasis of caste, rituals etc

8. Commentaries and translations

Right now we are in good shape with on the sections 0-2 and in ok shape with section 8. The rest all needs to be written. Of course, this is only a first pass proposal, and I am mainly presenting the outline to mark out the missing content. Eventually the order and names of sections may be quite different and some of the proposed topics may be merged or split differently. Any suggestions are welcome, especially with regards to topic that I may have missed. Abecedare (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ambitious, but surely this is worthy of it. I'll help as I can. A list of available online reliable sources that aren't already in the article would be helpful as they turn up. Priyanath ^talk 01:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this might take a month or more to get in shape, but there is no real deadline. I saw most of the above topics addressed in the references we already referred to in for the Origins and dating section, so we should have enough sources to start from. besides, the following sources may be useful:

Purana perennis, Wendy Doniger (ed)
History of Indian philosophy, Volume 4, Surendranath Dasgupta (not online AFAIK; but I can get a paper copy)
The Puranas: History of Indian literature vol 2,3; Ludo Rocher (not online AFAIK)
History of Indian theatreManohar Laxman Varadpande

Also, the G.V. Tagare translation of BP seem to be the most popular in sources I have seen, but there may be other good ones. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

you are making good progress, cheers. I frankly hadn't noticed just how bad the article used to be over all this Einstein nonsense. --dab (𒁳) 14:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about Suta

In rewriting the Contents/Introduction section, I came across two Wikipedia articles that both seem to describe the person who recounts the story of Sukadeva's recital of the Bhagavata. That would be Suta, who seems to have articles at Ugrasrava Sauti and also Suta Goswami. Are they the same, and is one of those even the correct name, since I've also see "Sūta" in reliable sources? Priyanath ^talk 18:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect they are the same or related, but I am not sure. To make the situation even more confusing, Doniger calls the narrator sage Śuka (Sanskrit: parrot) and vedabase seem to agree, expanding it to Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī by adding honorifics. The Doniger article may provide some clues to help get to the bottom of this, but I haven't read it yet. Abecedare (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I corrected my original comment, since I mistakenly said "Parikshit" instead of "Sukadeva". Sukadeva recited the story to Parkishit, but like the Mahabharata, "Suta", or "Sauta", "Suta Goswami", etc. recounted the whole scene to the rishis in Naimisha Forest. So it was Suta recounting Sukadeva reciting the original written by Vyasa. Very convoluted, but it did probably start with oral tradition after all. So I think Doniger is referring to Sukadeva when she says "Suka", since she says that "Suta heard Suka tell it to Parikshit himself" (p. 38). Hope that's clear..... Priyanath ^talk 19:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Several sources confirm that Ugrasrava Sauti and Suta Goswami are one and the same. The only question is what would be the most commonly used name to merge those two articles? It might even be simply Ugrasravas or Suta. The two best sources are Flood in The Blackwell book: "Almost all the puranas are said to have the Suta (either Lomaharsana or his son Ugrasravas) as their overall narrator, even though his chief task is sometimes—as in for example, the Bhagavata—to introduce a previous narrator from whom he has heard the story."[1] And The Body of God, which has a listing in the glossary: "Ugrashravas (Ugrasravas) Suta the narrator of the Bhagavata Purana."[2] My initial vote is for Ugraśravas, which gets many more google book hits that seem right on. Priyanath ^talk 01:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In Bhagavata Purana he's called only by the name Sūta. Ugrasravas is not even mentioned. Also, in Google scholar, Suta Goswami gets more hits.--Gaura79 (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As Matchett says in her Blackwell article, there are (at least) two Suta's: the father Lomaharsana Suta and the son Ugrasravas Suta; so perhaps we should have two articles by those names. The Suta page can be a disambiguation, while Suta Goswami etc can be redirects.

I have left a note on the talk pages of Ugrasrava Sauti and Suta Goswami to let editors there know of this discussion (they are probably not watching this page) - lets wait a bit before finalizing the naming since so that other editors can also chime in.

I'll try to to get Ludo Rocher's The Puranas in the next day or so; it is supposed to be a comprehensive work on the puranas and may have more detail.Abecedare (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The translation I have in hand (Kamala Subramaniam) begins with "Ugrashravas" entering Naimisharanya to address the rishis. "Suta" isn't included in the name in this version. I see other online sources that are similar (I only mentioned two above). Let's see what Rocher says. I'm more convinced that it's a merge, and that "Ugrasravas Suta" recounted the stories of both the Mahabharata and the Bhagavata at Naimisha Forest (at different times?), but there is no hurry. It would be good to clarify, though, since it's an interesting and integral part of the article. Priyanath ^talk 17:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with a merge; the only remaining question is what to name the new article. As you say the name of the son is simply Ugrasravas. Suta, I assume just refers to his profession as a bard. Would be best to go with whatever the most reliable non-sectarian secondary sources (like Flood etc) say, since they are least likely to use general honorifics. I'll add what I find in the next day or two. Abecedare (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

While you're at it, and since they'll be in the same neighborhood, can you see what the consensus among reliable sources is for the name of Sukadeva, Sukdev, Sukadeva Goswami? From what I'm seeing, "Sukadeva Goswami" is an ISKCON-centric version, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Priyanath ^talk 19:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the most common name is simply Śuka. ([3] etc.) The Sukadeva Goswami article calls him son of "Srila Vyasadeva" which is undoubtedly ISKCON-centric, the common name being Vyasa. "Goswami" also seems to be a suffix associated with ISKCON or at least Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Bhagavata Purana always says "Sri Suka (uvaca)". Gosvami refers to his self-realized state, achieving control of his senses. It's not his official title like in case of sannyasis or hereditary Gosvami lineages. Re Sutaji, I'd also include "Pauranika Suta", a well-known title, since he's the speaker of other Puranas as well. Jan 82.208.2.200 (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding both questions, first Suta and Ugrasravas: In Kṛṣṇa, Lord or Avatāra? (p. 108-109),[4] Matchett says that, "The Bhagavata connects itself more closely to the Mahabharata than the Visnu does. It has the same two opening interlocutors, Suta and Saunaka, and the same setting, the Naimisa forest. Yet, unlike the Harivamsa, it does not use the Mahabharata's Vaisampayana and Janamejaya as the interlocutors of its main narrative, but instead assigns these roles to Vyasa's son Śuka, and Pariksit...." So we're on the right track, as Ugrasravas is widely named as the opening narrator of the Mahabharata. He is just called "Suta" here, which is one of the most common versions. And Matchett calls Vyasa's son "Śuka", by the way. Priyanath ^talk 04:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Anand Aadhar

Is theorderoftime.org more reliable than Vedabase? Are either of them reliable? ~ R.T.G 21:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

They are translations of the text itself, and thus primary sources. As statements must be sourced only to secondary sources, the question of their reliability is not very relevant, right? Shreevatsa (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to say regarding primary sources. Regarding their reliability, in case commentaries might be involved, neither is published by an academic press or reliable third-party publisher, among several strikes against them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Priyanath ^talk 23:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why it the same rule not applied e.g. to Quran? Jan 82.208.2.200 (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Folks, the servers went down for me and in the interval I have been looking around. I am going by the check which confirmed that both those translations use the word "atom" on the text of 3.11. I have to say I do a lot of checking sometimes and the word "unreliable" is so rare in relation to Prabhupada [5] that I could almost applaud Priyanath for those two refs he provided in the "Does it say atom?" discussion (please, I say that in good faith). The only thing I have to relate Prabhupada to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Extremist and fringe sources, so far, are the two old 80s books Priyanath showed us above and something hilarious called http://therealexplanation.org/article/CHEAP_GURUS10.html . I do not wish to provoke Priyanath or to give undue wieght to Krishnaism on this article but it seems that you guys have now cut all relevance to Prabhupada giving a feel, as is the only mention of him now, that he was some sort of unnotable language scholar rather than a Swami of any notability. Of course this is not the Prabhupada page but if Krishnaism sees this text as their main bible, can you two guys not fit a bit in somewhere rather than someone like me of only minor knowledge? If you seek tact based on culture, I believe that you two are much better capable rather than someone coming along who is a Krishna devotee or like me who just likes them a bit and puts stuff in making you guys go "Oh! That's not the way to do it!" Go on lads. This is the en.wiki. Throw a few ISKCON words in there in a non-(obsessive?, is that the word you guys are taking care on?) Acknowledge Prabhupada/Hare Krishna Movement as some sort of big impact on Enlish language culture based on the Srimad Bhagavatam, without affecting an NPOV attitude. Nobody is going to be much more concerned with it as you two so nobody will do it better. Please, I am not edit warring and all I am trying to promote is objectivity regardless of sectarianism. I cannot imagine doing anything but the most minor edits to this article but I think the best work could come from you guys, as skeptics. Does that make sense? I am hard to follow sometimes leading to suspicion on my motives and sincerity. Like I have said before, the article will never be finished but if anyone can write something about Prabhupadas role on spreading the religion in places like America it will be folks with the objectivity of skepticism (you know how to discredit so try saying "I will not discredit, I will not promote", like a doctor "I do no harm", and you will cinch it better than anybody, that is my own POV). ~ R.T.G 00:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think his impact is much less than you believe. Living in the west, I believe that I read two other versions before I was even aware of his. Even if it were so, this article is about the Bhagavata Purana, not a person or particular version. Note that I refuse also to promote or proselytize my own favorite version here. That's because this article is about the book, and not a person, religion, sect, favorite version, or anything else. And Wikipedia requires Reliable Sources, which are neutral, third-party, secondary, and published by academic or high-quality publishers. But I think we've already said all that. Prabhupad's role in spreading his religion should be in his article, not here, sorry. Priyanath ^talk 02:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The article should contain something about any particularly notable subject with a history of being spawned from, dependent on or closely related to the Bhagavatam Purana so long as the information does not go outside any Wikipedia guidelines, that is the way you decide what is suitable not "his" or "hers" anything. Religion is inevitably going to play a role in this article but that is not the weight by which we measure notability. The Hare Krishna Movement is notable even if they are very bad, difficult to understand, or religious. The fact that they are notable is the first important thing. Can you say "I am prepared to talk notability without talking religion and bigotry or fear that I cannot say the word "devil" without going straight to hell." So far you have said it is not possible for them to be notable which is a fallacy. There are stacks of published articles in history about the Hare Krishna Movement. Here is some New York Times where they are ruled a "Bona fide religion" by the Supreme Court (just try and find a matching occurence to that), declared founded in New York, described as spreading the message of love and understanding across the nation and the world, birthplace recorded, capable of multi million dollar illegal activities, described as having 5000 followers in New York in 1977, evidence of massive financial turnover brought out in defence trial, court cases in which they are allowed to collect money and hand out literature, I mean, there is over 740 hits on the NYTimes and around 50% of them cost $4 a pop to read, without even knowing what it says, so, I am hoping to establish that the Hare Krishna movement is quite notable without losing too much sleep, as it is usually common knowledge. Monks can be so rare here sometimes that the Hare Krishnas are often the most often monk seen. So, if notability is possible to establish, obscuring their ties is just as bad as superimposing their views, right? Shouldn't anything, be it Hare Krishna, Atoms, chocolate cocoa, if it has signifigant notability in any field, way, shape or form, be noted as a relation on every article to which it does bear a strong relation to the subject even if that means putting Satan on the article about God, there are a lot of ways that would not fit, but there is certainly a few ways yes those two things are part of the same story (and of course they do). The Bhagavatam Purana might be related to ISKCON (which it's not) or ISKCON might be related to Bhagavatam Purana (which it is) and they are both notable hence a reason to describe any connection, whatever the connection may be. I do not suppose there is any doubt here that the Hare Krishnas feel related to the Bhagavata Purana. ~ R.T.G 06:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Swami Prabhupada's translation of Bhagavata Purana maybe sectarian and not the most accurate, according to some, but it is the most widely distributed and well known outside of India (an perhaps in India too). It has been translated in many languages, and in many languages it is the only translation of this Purana available (like Russian and Portuguese for example). Based on Swami Prabhupadas's translations, Richard L. Thompson and Michael Cremo wrote a bunch of books, some of them bestselling. Of cause we cannot say that Prabhupada's translation represent's Hindu view on the subject, but it does represent a Gaudiya Vaishnava view in modern context. We may like it or not, but his translation is notable, is the most widely known around the world and therefore deserves attention in this article. Besides, Gaudiya Vaishnavism is the only Hindu tradition where Bhagavata Purana plays a central role, where it is the primary text on which the theology of the tradition is based.--Gaura79 (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The method Priyanath is applying now is going to be perfect with something like, two minor sections below, "Sects dependant on the Bhagavata Purana" and "Differing interpretations", so long as there are dependent sects and differing interpretations. ~ R.T.G 15:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To simply mention that it's very popular in the translations section would be one thing, and fine. Any discussion of notability (which I'm not in favor of) would have to include notable academic scrutiny,[6][7] since this is an encyclopedia, and both his translation and purports have been controversial. Cremo and Thompson are only notable for their controversial statements, not for the Bhagavata. Priyanath ^talk 16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that book is a good reference to ISKCON notability, but, if you let the ISKCON article worry about ISKCON notability and provide room here only for items as they relate to the Bhagavatam, see what is notable, has connections to Bhagavatam, leave their notability there, provide reference regarding only the Bhagavatam connection here, does that help? It is easy to provide something that says "ISKCON believe (or A.C. Bhaktivedanta Sri Prabhupada) the Bhagavatam is very important.", you cannot expect to do much better than that. Then editors and readers can focus unclouded on other connections, especially more mainstream India followings (and maybe swami such as Rajneesh? I don't know), and leave it as simple as that making only minor descriptions, if that is appropiate. Once the subjects of any links can be shown as notable, it can be left to editing on those articles to show that notability? If I linked Krishna or Jesus on a page, I wouldn't neccesarily go very far into why their life stories are notable and should (do) think that the same applies to other notable figures. Extra, as you say, becomes irrelevant and confusing for editor and reader alike. If people want to follow links they will (and they will wether we are confused or not). This is about the Bhagavatam and if they want to ask "why?" about anything else, they should have to seek whatever "else" was "else"where. ~ R.T.G 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Question for RTG: Did you actually read the the article Priyanath linked to ? I ask, because your comment(s) seem to be a complete non sequitur . Abecedare (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I read the book summary. It does not mention the Bhagavatam. I am saying there are merits to establishing notability, but once established, seek only source like, "the subject is closely tied to the Bhagavatam", and leave the rest to the subjects (ISKCON this time) article. Even if it was worth seeing here to show broader notability, that does not mean it belongs on the article. I went on to say, let's not focus on ISKCON but instead bring other elements into play, with the intention of being a bit clever and coaxing some information about Indian orthodox views from Priyanath. Did I ramble a bit on that last count? The gist is still there and makes sense. ~ R.T.G 23:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)That link was to a signed chapter which is almost entirely about Bhaktivedanta and his version of the Bhagavata. To summarize: his translation is mostly derivative and sometimes a direct copy of two earlier Bhagavata translations, including many stanzas that were a verbatim copy of the Gita Press translation. His commentaries (called "purports") are sometimes derivative of others' work and sometimes directly his own. The commentaries that are distinctly his own are notable mostly for being quite idiosyncratic: he says the 1969 moon landing didn't happen; he attacks "Mayavadins", or those who worship an impersonal God; his views on women are notable ("Although rape is not legally allowed, it is a fact that a woman likes a man who is very expert at rape").

As a text, his work is arguably notable only for the idiosyncratic, non-mainstream commentaries, and not for the translation itself. The fact that it is "a very popular version" of the Bhagavata might be worthy of being mentioned in passing. But that's all that needs to be said about Bhaktivedanta and his book, in my opinion. FYI to R.T.G., the sections I've been rewriting so far actually do give a more orthodox view, and are very respectful and sympathetic to the Gaudiya Vaishnava understanding. Priyanath ^talk 01:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Priyanath, maybe I need to pay a subscription to Google books (?) but on that link I get only these two paragraphs:-

Book overview
Dancing and chanting with their shaven heads and saffron robes, Hare Krishnas presented the most visible face of any of the eastern religions transplanted to the West during the sixties and seventies. Yet few people know much about them.

This comprehensive study includes more than twenty contributions from members, ex-members, and academics who have followed the Hare Krishna movement for years. Since the death of its founder, the movement, also known as the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), has experienced debates over the roles of authority, heresy, and dissent, which have led to the development of several splinter movements. There is a growing women's rights movement and a highly publicized child abuse scandal. Providing a privileged look at the people and issues shaping ISKCON, this volume also offers insight into the complex factors surrounding the emergence of religious traditions, including early Christianity, as well as a glimpse of the original seeds and the germinating stages of a religious tradition putting down roots in foreign soil.

Anyway, what I tried to say above and Abedecare could not connect to what you are saying now, is: ISKCON is notable for all these things, but let us only concentrate on the relations to the Bhagavatam. Let editors on the ISKCON article, which could be you or me, worry about what else ISKCON is notable for there. We can just say "ISKCON (or any other notable subject) sees tha Bhagavatam as..." and just link an ISKCON page which says it. Let talk about their teaching and controversies go on the ISKCON article (unless those controversies are directly about the Bhagavatam, such as interpretation. But, also, try not to make it look as though ISKCON is the only group with a strong connection to the Bhagavatam. Surely a Swami like Rajneesh, even if he was ridiculously behaved, maintains a strong link to the Bhagavatam and surely, orthodox views can be given a name and comparison. You could do a "Main difference" comparison (maybe you don't want to, that is your business) without a source so long as you are impartial and do not speculate. All you'd need to source is that the differences do exist but of course, if nobody feels they can do that, I could not do it, then it cannot be done. Still, try not to say that only ISKCON feels a strong bond to the Bhagavatam because we need to balance. Personal note to Priyanath:- If you think that Prabhupada is gruesome, try the Bible and the Quaran!!! One says "We hope to force the rapists to marry the girls." the other says "Rape can be a spiritual virtue." The books are written by mans hand and require pinches of salt to ingest. ~ R.T.G 10:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Rajneesh was just a throwaway example - he has no strong connection to the Bhagavata that I know of. Unfortunately, that was Bhaktivedanta's statement about rape, not the Bhagavata's. That's why if there is a section on 'his' version, his issues vs. the real Bhagavata need to be clearly addressed. But until there is an actual proposal to add him to the article, I'll gracefully bow out of this discussion, since there are diminishing returns at this point. Priyanath ^talk 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was just trying to answer a simple question about writing an article and it turned into a session of covering up the existence of the Hare Krishnas as well as some remarkable words of an ancient and sacred text based on the words and beliefs of my most ancient tracable ancestors. Objectivity is best unless you're hiding the truth. All best, ~ R.T.G 18:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Style question

Italics for every mention of Bhagavata Purana, purana, Bhagavata, bhakti? Most of the references seem to do so. And let's agree on a short version: Bhagavata or Bhagavatam? And what about IAST at each use? Priyanath ^talk 02:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think too many italics would be distracting, but the Mahabharata article uses them (sometimes) while Ramayana doesn't. I think IAST is unambiguous and we should use it everywhere, especially when "Bhāgavata" has only one diacritic mark (so is not distracting). As for the short version, "Bhāgavata" is the root, and "Bhāgavatam" is the noun form in Sanskrit (nominative case, whatever). It seems (see Talk:Daṇḍin) that convention in English is to use the roots; thus "Rāmāyaṇa" instead of "Rāmāyaṇam", "Mahābhārata" instead of "Mahābhārataḥ", "Daṇḍin" instead of "Daṇḍi", etc.; and in line with this "Bhāgavata" seems to be what most of the sources (e.g. Sisir Kumar Das, Matchett, Sheridan) use. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds right. And you're right, I actually was wondering about just using diacritics, rather than IAST markup. Priyanath ^talk 05:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Great job!

Whoever is responsible for this new Bhagavatam page should be greatly commended. They did a magnificent job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.27.62.219 (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia art museum paintings

I came across quite a few images related to Bhagavata Purana at the Philadelphia Art Museum. See Wikipedia_talk:Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board#Philadephia_art_museum for details on accessing these images. --Nvineeth (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Great! This article is fun to illustrate given the humongous amount of art BP inspired. For balance though, we should include some temple and sculpture images, which unfortunately are harder to find under a free license since {{PD-art}} does not apply. Abecedare (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cultural and social influence section

Just wanted to gain some consensus on the scope and content of this section (CSI).
In my view the contents of this section need to be kept distinct from the Philosophy and Content section in that the latter two talk about what the BP says, while the CSI section outlines what effect that theology and mythology had on Indian society and culture. So for example, the discussion of BP's views on rituals and caste perhaps belong in the Philosophy section, while the CSI section should discuss if and how those views practically changed the established caste system, and Brahmanism.
Secondly, I think the Theatre and dance discussion should not be split out on its own, but should be a subsection of CSI. Over time I plan to add two more similar subsections on CSI's impact of

Literature and poetry (for example, on the Sandesha kavya genre), and
Art and architecture (we already have great examples of BP inspired iconography in the images included in the article).

As Bryant notes:

... the Bhagavata has inspired more derivative literature, poetry, drama, dance, theatre and art than any text in the history of Sanskrit literature, with the possible exception of the Ramayana.

and CSI should summarize these influences in one place. Eventually, depending on the length, we may want to split the social influence from the cultural influence, but for now I think we can keep them together. Any comments or suggestions ? Abecedare (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I had the same thought as I was writing that section re: the fact that it was about what the BP says rather than its influence. So, moving that into the philosophy section (subsection title?) makes sense to me. And then of course having the current section cover the influence. Priyanath ^talk 17:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the caste content can be covered under the Bhakti subsection, since as I understand it, the underemphasis on caste followed from BP's focus on devotion as the preferred dharmic path, in contrast with Vedic ritualism, or even Upanashidic focus on jnana. This change meant that Brahmins were no longer the required intermediary in worship. However, the sources need to be be checked to confirm my memory - since I haven't looked at them recently. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds right, the Bhakti section. I was also looking for those sources re: getting rid of the priestly intermediary - so far what I'm seeing is that the bhakti movement in general had that influence. I'll keep looking. Priyanath ^talk 17:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Priyanath, I saw you adjusting the TOC in the article to limit its length, and thought I'd throw out some half-baked ideas. The main issue is the Contents section, which has 12 subsections corresponding to the 12 books. We can use the following approaches to omit this sub-sections from appearing in the TOC:

Use level four (instead of level 3) headings for each book, and then limit the TOC to display upto only level 3. However MOS may deprecate such an approach.
Instead of sub-sections we can organize the books using the "; : " system, as in,

Book 12

The future rulers of Magadha are predicted, along with

The only issue being that we can then not edit the individual books separately, but need to edit the longer Contents section.

The current approach, limiting the TOC to level 2, is not bad either. Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Both are good ideas, and better than my first attempt at it. I like the first version better. Any issue with MOS may well be the same for the second version. I'll try it out, and solicit more feedback. Thanks, Priyanath ^talk 20:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, that didn't work. It's now showing all the levels. Priyanath ^talk 20:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently TOClimit doesn't simply count the number of "="'s in the section header, but looks at the levels of hierarchy (see test case). So my first proposed solution won't work. We can stick with the 2nd level limit, or use the second option. I have no real preference, since both have their pros and cons.

By the way, real nice work on fleshing out the Philosophy section! Abecedare (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is another option (was easier to illustrate than describe). Abecedare (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the best yet. I'll revert to that for now, unless you have better ideas. Priyanath ^talk 20:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, as I got into the philosophy section, I realized that there's a great deal more that could be done. Same for the Significance section. Rocher's book was great for the Book descriptions. I'd like to see A critical study of the Bhagavata Purana by T. S. Rukmani, which some of the other reliable sources recommend. Priyanath ^talk 20:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Its nice that we (= you :-) ) have access to the Rocher book at last; it should be useful for Purana and other article too. I hadn't come come across the Rukmani reference before but the title sounds promising and it is part of the Chowkhamba Sanskrit series, which I have seen before. The book is available at my library and I have placed a request for it.

As for there being much more that can be added, that is no surprise: Dasgupta's book has 10-15 pages on the relatively narrow topic of roles of Brahman, Paramishvara, Bhagavat etc in BP (I read it a few weeks back but it was difficult to summarize so I put it off). The length and the depth of this article is limited only by us editors. Abecedare (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S.: Dasgupta's The History of Indian Philosophy is available online here.[8] Priyanath ^talk 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I have a physical copy of Vol. IV with me, but an electronic copy is even more useful for "browsing". Thanks for the link. Abecedare (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And if you order(ed) Rocher's book, don't be dissuaded when the 'wrong' book arrives (namely Hindu Tantric and Shakta Literature). In my library copy (from Worldcat), The Puranas is bound right on the back of the first book, with no mention of it on the cover or the 'first' title page/contents. Talk about hidden teachings.... Priyanath ^talk 21:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that in cases where there are significant traditions providing their own versions and sources they should be allowed to at least be mentioned, on their own merits, so to speak. For example, if some of the major Vaishnava sampradayas, like the Gaudiyas, Vallabhas, Nimbarka etc, have their own traditional datings for the Bhagavata Purana, why not simply allow them to be mentioned? What's the harm? (I am not saying that every little fringe sect with their own version should have to clutter space here, but I am talking about major lineage.) Otherwise there is a risk that Wikipedia becomes monopolized by the academic version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmoniser (talk • contribs) 19:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Srimad-bhagavatam-banner.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead section image

I thought that the image here is a much better illustration of the Bhagavata Purana as an ancient text, being a hi-rez and good quality image of the original manuscript with illustrations. This is what, IMHO, the lead section image should illustrate. The current image of Krishna holding the Govardhan, while being nice and aesthetically pleasing, serves less to illustrate the article on the Bhagavata Purana as an ancient text than the proposed image does. It can still be used, but should be demoted to the body of the article. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Replacing the image with another image of the manuscript and illustrations, but with a more prominent episode.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good. However, the resolution is a bit too low. Is it possible to find the same or similar manuscript image of a better quality, with a view of nominating it for FP (as I was hoping to)? Also, it is unclear for me what should take preference – image quality or its arbitrary content prominence? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just replaced your image with its hi-rez version, albeit not high enough for a FP nomination. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Origin and Dating

I am not sure how is this related to origin and dating --

It has been also noted that Goudapada, the guru of Govinda, who was the teacher of Adi Shankara, mentions a verse of the Bhagavata in his Uttaragita-bhasya[15] as well as two other verses of Bhagavata Purana in his Sankhya-karika.[16]

Probably belongs to a different section, not this one. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that sentence was essentially paraphrased from this Hare Krishna webiste (or perhaps one of its mirrors), which says "But Gaudapada, teacher of Govinda who was teacher of Sankara, mentions the Bhagavatam in his Uttaragita-bhasya and in his commentary on Sankhya-karika makes reference to other two verses." Anyways, the detailed argument of its dating doesn't belong in this section, which is written in summary style to represent religious views and scholarly consensus, without going into detailed examination of the evidence that lead to those views. Abecedare (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It directly relates to the question of dating of the Bhagavata Purana, as if it was cited before Adi Sankara time, it is obviously related to the dating of the purana. (and no, it is not a paraphrase of cite that also makes a use of the same research. Wikid ^as© 07:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In the website, they provide the context before they present this sentence. However, when added in isolation, this sentence is definitely out of place and sounds confusing as well. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not use the website for this reference, I agree that the sentence itself sounded out of place, and I have changed it to clarify how it directly relates to 'dating' - being pre-sankara - of the Purana. I hope it is acceptable as it is, since its clearly relating to dating of the Purana. Wikid ^as© 08:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I found the original source from where the sentence including the citations was copied. See this "MA thesis summary" (zip file) which says on page 7-8, "... Goudapada, the teacher of Govinda, who was teacher of Sankara, mentions a verse of the Bhâgavatam in his Uttaragita-bhasya[28] as well as two other verses of Bhâgavatam in his Sankhya-karika.[29]" with citations 28 and 29 matching the ones Wikidas added, without citing the source he had actually consulted. Incidentally this is a fringe source that concludes that

"Bhâgavatam was compiled in a period that goes from the end of Mahâbhârata age, at the beginning of Kali-yuga (3102 BC) and at the latest around 2600 BC, when the star Alpha Draconis was still in the Polar Axis and the Sarasvati still flowed. However, in spite of all the scientifically rigorous analysis presented in this investigation, we find that mainstream scholars are still very much opposed to this demonstration"

It would really help if we could avoid such POV pushing, mis-citations of non-RS sources, and adding fringe sectarian material in the future. Abecedare (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

While clearly this MA thesis is citing the same material, why is the view that Goudapada cited Bhagavata Purana is not acceptable for inclusion, It is not the MA Thesis that is being cited but the sources used in it. Thus your accusation is groundless to say the least. Wikid ^as© 08:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikidas you have been caught misrepresenting sources several times in the past and if you continue, you will be banned from wikipedia. A simple question: Did you actually read the two sources you cited ? If so, can you provide the corresponding quotes ? If not, you did miscite sources, especially considering that you left out the contradictory mainstream opinion that even the fringe "MA thesis" you used quoted. Abecedare (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If anything in this case I can be accused of copyvio. It quoted it verbatim. Non of the accusations you personally brought against me ever held up, and I am very closely citing the sources. This source clearly relates to the fact that Goudapada, a well known grand-guru of Sankara is citing this Purana. It is also covered by "The Bhāgavata bhakti cult and three Advaita ācāryas, Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and Vallabha" by Ramnarayan Vyas, Nag Publishers, 1977, specifically in the pages 190-192. I am not citing these sources, but it is a fact that dating of the purana is being seen in a different light and the whole discussion on the influence of this Purana on Sankara may be mentioned as well. I have seen both the sources and the MA at the time I add this. As an admin you should know better as to treat others, there are many sources that corroborate to the fact that Goudapada has cited the Bhagavatam, besides the primary sources. Wikid ^as© 08:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you claim to have seen both the sources that you cited, can you:

Specify what references 2 and 3 are in this snippet and explain why you cited the incorrect page number (just like the MA thesis did)?
Can you provide the relevant quotes from "Majumdar, Bimanbehari. Krishna in History and Legend. University of Calcutta 1969, p. 61" ?

I'll be blunt with you: It is obvious that you are not being truthful in this instance, just has been the case in the past. If you wish to argue that none of the times you have been caught making up and/or misrepresenting sources "ever held up", I am willing to start a user RFC on you, which IMO will lead to you being banned from the project (I'll have to dig up the diff, but I can even quote you saying several months back that you had miscited sources in the past, but had stopped now). I would highly recommend that you admit error and more importantly, stop this disruptive and completely unacceptable behavior. Abecedare (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, this also seems to be a case of synthesis using two sources not directly related to dating. Neither of the references seem to talk directly about the dating, and support only the presence of verses. While this is perfectly acceptable for a MA thesis, I don't think it is possible in the article. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the MA thesis was from "Instituto Bhaktivedanta de Ciencias y Humanidades A. C., Mexico (note the redlink), and is worth reading to see (1) its fringe claims, and (2) even the author admitting that his claims will not be accepted by actual scholars in the field ("admittedly the research presented here may not be sufficient to satisfy the specialists"; "we find that mainstream scholars are still very much opposed to this demonstration").

It's quite obvious that Wikidas essentially plagiarized this source, without attribution, and cited the other two without having taken a look at them. Incidentally, here are some earlier instances that I am aware of where he made up, misrepresented or selectively quoted sources to push a POV:

and now here. I think it is high-time such behavior which is so corrosive to encyclopedic content stops. Here is what the ARBCOM had to say in a similar case, and Wikidas has been told all this repeatedly over the past 2 years. Abecedare (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikidas, please try to be honest about your sources and stick to WP:RS. I suppose it is possible to construct an argument dating the BP to the 8th century, as it is impossible to date any classical Indian text better than with an error margin of at least 200 years, but such an argument would have to come from a serious source, and would need to be presented accurately, not via a mis-citation of a mis-citation. --dab (𒁳) 09:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the "Gaudapada cited the BP" idea originates in the 1930s with one Amarnath Ray [9] The idea can be referenced by pointing to perfectly pedestrian publications like Encyclopaedia of Hinduism, no need to introduce funky ISKCON "MA theses". Also note that the spelling "Goudapada" is a dead giveaway that we are looking at ISKCON literature ("Gouranga"), the chap is called Gauḍapāda in close transliteration, and lived in the 8th century. Was the BP composed in the 8th century? Or the 9th? Or the 10th? You've got me there. I would say that the BP is of about the same age as Beowulf. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Our article already states that the date range for BP is 5-10c , with ~9c being the most commonly accepted date (we even cite Hazra as one of the few exceptions, who prefers the 6th century dating). The problem is not that a pre-8th c date is being pushed, but rather that material taken from a fringe source is being presented out of context and being attributed to other sources, that not even Wikidas has seen. That prevents an honest evaluation of the material and source quality. Abecedare (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is your choice to remove sources you do not like or if it is associated with a POV you do not like. You can use some records of the previous attacks on my sources as a tool, obviously it will lay on your conscience. This source different to others cited by MA I saw a year ago is clearly presenting a specific POV (that you for some reason trying to remove from the article. If you want you can bring it up on ARBCOM, but I would question your partiality on this, since there is a good record of your attempts to remove predominantly spread Gaudiya POV from a few articles and you may use your admin status for that, but should you not just mention the simple notion that Goudapada quotes Bhagavatam and that predates the Adi Sankara by some hundred years... Is it a POV or a simple fact that is very relevant to the date of the Purana... ?Wikid ^as© 10:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikidas, again please don't create a strawman. This is not a debate about any POV, but about your repeated dishonest presentation of sources. If you dispute that, please do answer the questions I asked above, and provide quote from the sources you cited, and claimed to have seen. Abecedare (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Look I cited sources you do not like, they are by Gaudiya scholars and associates. You do not like them and do not like the fact that this funky MA thesis is using them. I do not have scans of these and I only seen them with MA. Are you based on this will deny that Encyclopaedia of Hinduism should not be cited? Obviously it discusses the dating in detail and is presenting same facts (and more facts) on the earlier dating then the Gaudapada. Look at the above discussion, it is all about Gaudiya presentation. But lets put it aside, are you prepared to have a sentence here clearly stating that because it quoted by 7th century commentator Gaudapada, the later dating is put into a question. Thanks dab for the RSs, I had trouble finding it due to the spelling mistake in that funky MA source I used. Wikid ^as© 10:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for at last admitting that you cited sources that you had not seen and that you lied before when you claimed otherwise ("I have seen both the sources and the MA at the time I add this.")! Such dishonesty makes it very difficult to trust anything you say, and work collaboratively with you. You really need to stop such conduct, if you wish to continue editing on wikipedia. Two years is a long enough period to have learned better.

As for the content issue: even if you read the thesis itself, you'll see that most scholars dispute the evidence you are citing. Even then, the article correctly summarizes the that BP was composed sometime in the 5-10c period (which includes the pre-8th c conjecture), and that 9th c is the most widely, though not universally, accepted date. Getting into a detailed discussion of the evidence that leads scholars to this conclusion, is beyond the scope of this summary style article - although I would encourage you to read the cited sources (Kumar Das, Matchett, van Buitenen etc), instead of wasting your and our time (selectively) quoting from a fringe MA thesis. Abecedare (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You are making such a fuss out of quoting from the fringe MA thesis, and accusing me of not seeing it. Why do you do it? Why a simple logical statement that Gaudapada quoted it according to some is out of the range of this 'summary style'. If it is a summary style - then a full article should be written on the subject, otherwise what is it summary of? If anything the section should be expanded. Any reasons on not expanding the section? Did I quote anything that makes this section a fringe? Did I even mention the fringe MA thesis in the citation? Stop this attack and lets write down based on the RS as per above. Wikid ^as© 10:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Why have you claimed that (diff) I quote a Hare Krishna website (when I didn't)? You know that it is being used as a source to the Hare Krishna views; and thus you are just trying to put me down (before even discovering the MA thesis), it is clearly not about the actual article's content, you are just trying to dismiss it off hand and then accusing me of lying, when you present your assumptions as the fact first. (an interesting move, light the fire and then accuse others of creating a strawman) Wikid ^as© 11:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I not going to argue or explain this any further. Feel free to start an RFC or get a third opinion, if you wish - although you should be aware that further disruption is likely to lead to you being sanctioned for persistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Abecedare (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You do not need to, you have already agreed to expand the article and your input is valued! RS are there and the fact that it was written and known before Gaudapada is worth mentioning; WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - it is something u should note and use; but remember it is not your article, and anyone who has good RS is free to add material as well as question the sources. I am going to expand the section about the date of the Bhagavata using the RS above, and I appreciate the help of other editors who supplied these sources after my edits. Can you try to be less antagonistic Abe? Nevermind Wikid ^as© 11:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikidas, the article already gives a range from 500-1000 CE, using the very best sourcing. Any fringe or even little known scholar who also puts the date in that range is unnecessary. Because of your history, I suggest you propose additions here and reach consensus first. I think the article actually bends over backwards to point out that the date range is referring only to the final written text, not on the origin of the Bhagavata itself, which can't ever be proven (using real sources, anyway). The pattern of falsifying sources to promote a POV is much more serious. If there is an RfC (which I don't have the time to start), I think that a topic ban on Krishna- and Hinduism-related articles wouldn't be overreaching. Priyanath ^talk 16:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

sheesh, I didn't see the 500 CE lower estimate. Then why oh why are we prancing about some obscure references saying "may predate 800 CE"? We already say it may predate 800 CE, by as much as three centuries! Now 500 CE would be an extremely early date for the composition of any Purana. As Priyanath is saying, we are already bending over backwards to accommodate the "my ancient texts are more ancient than your ancient texts" mentality exhibited by Wikidas. Please let it rest now, there is nothing to see here. dab (𒁳) 18:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to suggest it is ancient or not, I just wanted to see reference of its age to the landmark of Sankara. I feel it is important, as the most common argument (besides common Vopadeva story that I keep hearing) is that Sankara did not comment on it and did not refer to it thus it must be post Adi Sankara. Why you keep putting words in my mouth? Wikid ^as© 20:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

you "wanted to see reference of its age to the landmark of Sankara"? Shankara lived in the 9th century. By saying that estimates range from 500 to 1000 we are already saying BP may predate or postdate Shankara. If you have academic literature that add further points, present it, but stop making a fuss over nothing at all. Also, stop trying to sneak in non-academic ISKCON-type literature into the dating question. --dab (𒁳) 15:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree - if there are very high quality academic sources that can add to the dating, then let's hear about them on the talk page. Right now the article reflects the highest quality sources, which is as it should be for such an important article. Let's keep it that way. Priyanath ^talk 20:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that in cases where there are significant traditions providing their own versions and sources they should be allowed to at least be mentioned, on their own merits, so to speak. For example, if some of the major Vaishnava sampradayas, like the Gaudiyas, Vallabhas, Nimbarka etc, have their own traditional datings for the Bhagavata Purana, why not simply allow them to be mentioned? What's the harm? (I am not saying that every little fringe sect with their own version should have to clutter space here, but I am talking about major lineage.) Otherwise there is a risk that Wikipedia becomes monopolized by the academic version. Harmoniser (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Harmoniser makes a very good suggestion, why should the acedemic version hold a monoploy? As a general rule Academia is not a friend of Indian culture, civilization or history. Even though individual academics my be charming and some may even be exceptions. Why do I say that? The answer is covered in the following books that you can either purchase or down load for free.

“Invading the Sacred”

Book’s home page http://invadingthesacred.com

Publishers homepage where you can download the book http://rajivmalhotra.com/books/invading-sacred

Amazon description https://www.amazon.com/Invading-Sacred-Analysis-Hinduism-Studies/dp/8129111829

The other book is “The Battle for Sanskrit”

Description on Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/The-Battle-Sanskrit-Oppressive-Liberating/dp/9351775380/ref=pd_sim_14_5/189-6536801-7143743?ie=UTF8&dpID=51rxFbjMmJL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR108%2C160_&refRID=0VVHVR2F575R8E4EV5JE

Home page http://thebattleforsanskrit.com

A review from home page:

"The Battle for Sanskrit wrests open a main gate to the predominantly western constructed citadel known as Indology. Who can remain silent or, worse, collaborate, in the face of groundless allegations that Indian elites are promulgating Sanskrit and its traditions for political gain, thus perpetuating a so-called Sanskrit-born social abuse? As the linguistic key to the highest wisdom of humanity, Sanskrit studies must escape captivity enforced by academic guardians who over-zealously wield the club of Western theoretical methods. The author, besides exposing the colonial baggage still colouring the western approach to India’s Sanskrit heritage, also shines his torch, in fairness, upon the large platoon of Indian sepoys colluding as mercenaries to help keep the Sanskrit potentiality in check. A salient point this book offers us is that the Western approach to Sanskrit is often weighed down by “political philology”—cultural biases, hegemonic filters. Superbly presenting the positive correction to this imbalance, the author advocates our seeing through the lens of “sacred philology." H.H. DEVAMITRA SWAMI, Spiritual Leader and Author of Searching for Vedic India.

Download the book https://www.dropbox.com/s/7on9ttwo0i5ih6b/The%20Battle%20for%20Sanskrit_ocr.pdf?dl=0

Thus when dealing with the academe we should keep in the fore front that we are dealing with hostiles with an agenda. So to singularly promote the POV of academia is not neutral. Let the traditions speak for themselves rather than by biased outsiders. Or at least let both versions be known. Why should their version of their own tradition be squelched in favor of outsider opinions?van Lustig (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bhagavata Purana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

sri mad bhagvat its profit

Kalloodwivedi (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC) it is most holy book written by Ved Vyas originally in Sanskrit . it talks about salvation in Indian philosophy. within limited time ie. 7 days how can a person get salvation. in brief it narrates all avtars of Narayan ie. there is story of lord Vishnu. lord narayan lord kapil lord narsigh lord rama, lord krishna etc and his main devotees. there is confluence o knowledge and devotion , traditions of all hindu sector are given equal importance.a person get salvation by love and devotion by dedication. the story of child krishna is attracting .in nutshell Naraian is omnipresent omnipotent . he kind and generous.one should seek his asylum with full belief and faith. do not bother . move towards lord krishna he will give heavenly and worldly pleasure. i myself experienced it. kalloo prasad dwivedi lucknow.

Mahabhagavata Purana

I have redirected Mahabhagavata Purana - that (unsourced) article appears to be another title for this work, but I am not certain of that. Can somebody please verify? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Shinjini kulkarni actor and kathak dancer 07.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Lack of Focus on the Text Itself

It seems the bulk of content in this article concerns other books and articles about the Srimad Bhagavatam - themselves forming a hodgepodge of different views (atheistic, Christian, etc.), interpretations, and personal opinions - rather than the scripture itself. While there is no problem with sharing others' views, I do not see why they should be emphasised over the content of the scripture itself; I propose restructuring and re-writing the entire article to place a far greater emphasis on the content of the scripture. Carlduff (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Lord Krishna with flute.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

10th Canto - washing of Narada's feet

This seems to be a misstatement. The story involves the washing of Sudama's feet. Sudama was a childhood friend of Krishna and at his wife's insistence, travels to Dvarka to request Krishna to alleviate him from his poverty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.112.79.94 (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"Advaita" in the Bhagavatam

The section on "Advaita" in the Bhagavatam is highly controversial considering that the Bhagavatam is used by Vaisnavas to attack Advaitism. Commentators on Bhagavatam have also noted that because of its strong support of the personhood of Godhead that Sankaracarya did not comment on the Bhagavatam. A much better explanation of any so-called "advaita" found in the Bhagavatam is explained in the Achintya Bheda Abheda tattva doctrine of the Gaudiya Sampradaya.van Lustig (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Using atheists as authorities on the Bhagavatam

What I find tragi-comical is that most of the referenced citations are from atheists for a text that is clearly theistic. What is their qualification for understanding it?van Lustig (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sam van lustig: Please see WP:RS, then explain your concern with the cited secondary and tertiary sources by well established professors and reputed university-press publishers. Please be careful in casting aspersions or defaming living scholars, as that is not allowed in wikipedia, including this or other talk pages. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. Sam is right. Atheists even if they own 20 PhDs are not competent to comment on any theistic text what to speak of the Bhagavata. Anyway now we know that you are a sphincter. And why I stopped linking to wiki-demons long ago. I often see people being disparaged for using wikipedia as a reference and it will only get worse. The don't call it wiki$h1t for nothing. 49.206.8.79 (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I often find the "Talk Page" more entertaining than the main article because this is where the truth of the matter is revealed. Ms "Squelch" wants that a theistic text be done over by a bunch of atheists with "PhD" after their name. This is why I stopped quoting wikipedia for anything and look to other sources instead.124.123.107.225 (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Lmao this talk page tho 950CMR (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Clearly Sarah is wrong. Atheists are not reliable sources on a theistic work. Any sensible person can understand that.24.139.24.163 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)