Template talk:Krishna
 | Hinduism: Krishnaism Template‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | India Template‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Barsana and Radha Kund are not related directly to Krishna, but to Radha, thus removing them.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Govardhana sila
- Govardhana sila is not a form of Krishna, it is a rock from Govardhana. Why is it needed here.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- According to Gaudiya vaishnava theology Caitanya Mahaprabhu instructed that the govardhana-sila, the stone taken from Govardhana, is nondifferent from the body of Sri Krsna.[1] And this view is shared by others: Known also as Govardhan, Giriraj is the sacred center of Braj and is identified as a natural form of Krishna. (River of Love in an Age of Pollution: The Yamuna River of Northern India by David L. Haberman, Page 264 ISBN 0520247892) I would put it in. Wikidās ॐ 15:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- That cannot be classified as a form of Krishna. Inclusion in the template will be a case of WP:UNDUE IMO.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Govardhana sila is not a form of Krishna, it is a rock from Govardhana. Why is it needed here.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Notes
Notes at the bottom of the template is not a norm and Vithoba does not warrant such note, it looks like an unnecessary attention is being drawn to the fact that everyone will observe IF they want to by reading the page. I am sure ATG's intention was to add Radha raman as exclusive form and I think RT is right and we can keep Vithoba, but only in the see also (it is not an exclusive form). Wikidās ॐ 08:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Different traditions associate Vithoba with different deities, but he is mainly viewed as a form of Krishna or Vishnu. Mahony, W.K. (1987). "Perspectives on Krsna's Various Personalities" and Novetzke, Christian Lee; Beck, Guy L. (2005). "A Family Affair: Krishna comes to Pandharpur and makes Himself at Home", Alternative Krishnas: Regional and Vernacular Variations on a Hindu Deity"; T. Padmaja (2002). Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: History, Art, and Traditions in Tamilnāḍu. Abhinav Publications, pp. 92, 108, 121–22, fig 87. ISBN 8170173981, 9788170173984. Retrieved on 2008-09-20. detail Vithoba and his association to Krishna. These references are used in Krishna and Vithoba articles respectively. I have removed the note in case of WP:UNDUE. About Lakshminarayan, they are not Radha-Krishna, they are Vishnu and Lakshmi as per name. Nara Narayana are not forms of Krishna, the Mahabharata talks Arjuna and Krishna being incarnates of Nara and Narayana NOT viceversa. See respective articles for references. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not insisting on Nara Narayana being the forms of Krishna and Arjuna or vv. I just note that if there are different concepts on what form Vithoba is of (ie Krsna, Siva etc., it should be in see also not in the 'forms of krishna' that is exclusive to undesputed forms. Nara narayana in many traditions are accepted as forms of Krishna even if Bhumi devi in Bhagavata XI will praise them as incarnates. I would therefore also place Nara Narayana(if to be included) in the same category, ie on the bottom row 'see also', it is clearly not 'the form' of Krishna.Wikidās ॐ 14:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- One can surf through numerous references [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] for the association of Krishna with Vithoba. Note many of the texts here do not refer to any other association (Shiva, Buddha, Vishnu), but write "Vithoba (Krishna)" or "Vithoba is a form of Krishna". Many Hindu deities have being identified through their development to present status with other deities e.g Shiva with Rudra, Indra and Agni; similar is the case of Vithoba: identification with Shiva a step in present status as Vishnu-Krishna (the popular one). --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- The references are quite good for this one. I think you have already agreed that the footnote was UNDUE and you place him at the end of the list, previous note was giving a false impression. I know of some who will see Krsna as a form of Siva or Buddha, but that is a minority view and expressing this will not be appropriate for the template. What do you think ATG? Wikidās ॐ 15:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: Vithoba - I removed it from the list because he is a deity worshipped only in the western belt of India (Mainly Maharashtra) and not as universal as Radha Krishna and the others. I could add Jhulelal, Swaminarayan (The Williams book and a book by the Lord Bishop of Calcutta confirm that he is believed to be an incarnation of Krishna) and many others to the list. But that would bring about a huge debate which would never end. I therefore tried to stick to the UNIVERSAL forms. RedTiger, ur interpretation of NaraNarayana is interesting - I think your be right there. In Lakshminarayan I referred to the Shikshapatri, where it is mentioned that when Krishna is with Rukmini he is known as Lakshinarayan. I dint know that that is not universally accepted. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 20:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Lakshminarayan is prominently considered Vishnu and Lakshmi. They being Krishna and Rukmini is a sectarian minority view. I am alphabetically sorting all lists in the template to revert any bias. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Other associated people
Should some entries from "See also" row be moved to form a new row of associated people? Apart from Vishnu, Radha, Rukmini and Satyabhama few more people could find place here. Jambavati, Arjuna, Kamsa could go in. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)