Talk:Vaishnavism

message: i think the krishna section in this article and others should be removed or supply an reliable refrence  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.179.171 (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  delete 

message: Should red letter page Swayam Bhagavan listed here, be Svayam Bhagavan?
This is not an article on Vaishnavism.
It is about the sectarian perception by a contemporary organization (ISKCON) of Vaishnavism. 
It should appropiately be referred as an article on ISKCON (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness) and its particular dogmas and phylosophycal positions.
I am new to wikipedia so I do not know how exactly the process goes to review these articles to help improve their neutrality.
Does someone review tha information? Who finally decides what stays and what goes?
Saludos
Jose Ignacio Lopez  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseignaciolopez (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swayam Bhagavan uner Principal historic branches 

message: Does the quote from the Rig Veda really belong in the lead? Is this actually the generally accepted translation and interpretation? 70.75.233.253 (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously do, source added. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The IP is right: that interpretation of the Rigvedic verse may well be the ones preferred by Vaishnava devotees, but it is not the "standard" one. Vishnu is mentioned in the Rigveda but only as a minor deity. Bladesmuti, can you provide the exact quotes and context from the source you added. I couldn't access it on Google Books. Abecedare (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rig Veda extract 

message: Jbgfour (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Vaishnavism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713061921/http://content.iskcon.com/icj/4_2/4_2charisma.html to http://content.iskcon.com/icj/4_2/4_2charisma.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Vaishnavism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061029151913/http://hinduism.iskcon.com/tradition/1201.htm to http://hinduism.iskcon.com/tradition/1201.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080225015818/http://www.sanskrit.org:80/www/Ramanuja/Ramanuja&vaishna.html to http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Ramanuja/Ramanuja&vaishna.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080127133553/http://www.britannica.com:80/eb/topic-621641/Vaishnavism to http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-621641/Vaishnavism
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061029151913/http://hinduism.iskcon.com/tradition/1201.htm to http://hinduism.iskcon.com/tradition/1201.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems to me that Krishnaism more or less covers the same topic as Vaishnavism. Having two articles on the same topic is rather confusing. There's a lot of duplicate information, while the overview of the various sects could be clearer. I'd like to improve the article; it's weird that such an important topic is covered in such a confusing way. Having one article on the topic would make it easier to make the topic more accessible. The Vaishnavism article also draws about ten times more visitors, and has at least four times more page-watchers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal: [[Krishnaism]] into [[Vaishnavism]] 

message: I like your edits. Are there specific sub-sections you would like me to focus on, among those marked 'expand section' (just wanting to avoid edit conflicts and duplicated work)? There are three subsections I would like to suggest: Vaishnava Upanishads, doctrinal differences/similarities between Vaishnavism-Shaivism-etc, Tantra in Vaishnavism. The last would clarify a few of the current subsections. If you are already planning to work on these, I will hold off. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add more info on the various traditions; so far, Flood will be helpfull. The three topics you mention are out of my comptence c.q. knowledge, so go ahead. And yes, some images, c.q. schemes, are difficult to read. But when they're given a bigger size, they dominate the article too much. Reader scan enlarge them themselves, though, by clicking on them. Thank you for your additions! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The tantra in Vaishnavism part is probably best included in individual sub-traditions, where applicable, because it varies with each. I have woven in a bit of the tantra part in the Sri Vaishnavism section. If you think there is an alternate better way, let me know. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three sections and the continued improvement of this article 

message: @JJ: The harv cites to Welbon 2005 and Hiltebeitel 2013 do not link anywhere. Please check. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added Hiltebeitel. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref-fixes

message: Let's start by defining sect and religion, SECT- a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong. RELIGION- a particular system of faith and worship.
As you can see, these 2 definitions are not mutually exclusive, One can therefore define Islam as an Christian sect, or an Christian as an Jewish sect, simply based on which group has the greater numbers at an certain time.
Consider also that the largest organized group of Vaishnavism the Hare Krishna Movement, does not mention themselves as an "sect of Hinduism" and regularly makes distinction between themselves and "Hindus"
see source
https://deshika.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/hinduization-of-iskcon-what-do-you-mean-exactly/
http://resource.download.wjec.co.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/vtc/2017-18/17-18_2-21/_eng/wjec/09-iskcon-a-legitimate-form-of-hinduism-ao1.html
http://www.krishna.com/are-hare-krishnas-hindus
https://www.quora.com/Do-hare-krishnas-consider-themselves-hindus  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.99.144 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Vaishnavism a sect or a religion?

message: The merging of Krishnaism article and Vaishnavism article is wrong. Hinduism has five old notable sub-sects - Suryaism, Shaktism, Shaivaism, Ganapati-ism, and Vaishnavaism. Krishnaism is a new sub-sect and it spreads misleading information about Hinduism, which seems like the truth at first. Krishnaism and Vaishnavism is not the same thing. In Vaishnavism, Vishnu is the supreme God, while in Krishnaism, Krishna is the supreme God. Due to mass propaganda spread by ISCKON (a.k.a Cult of Hare Krishna), Vishnu and Krishna seems like the two names for one god/lord, but it is not.
According to Vaishnavism, lord Vishnu has ten primary 'avatars/avataras', Krishna is the eighth of those, in which form, lord Vishnu was partially present (a strand of hair). But ISCKON tells that, Krishna is the supreme God, and lord Vishnu is one of Krishnas many 'secretory gods who works for Him' (summary of their teaching). 
This is evident from the naming itself. In Sanskrit, one can't just give a name to something (object, group et cetera). There are certain rules, which I am omitting for the sake of shortening this discussion as much as I can. Even if one does not know Sanskrit, a simple observation is enough. The sub-sect of Hinduism which worship Surya as the supreme God, is called Saura. Similarly, Shakti-Shakta, Shiva-Shaiva, Ganapati-Ganapat and Vishnu-Vaishnab. One can clearly see that the root of the name of the worshiped God is present in the name of sub-sect. So according to the rule, people who worship Krishna as the supreme God, in Sanskrit they are called 'Karshnava's (Karshna means 'related to Krishna' is Sanskrit).
This matter is fatal and therefore Wikipedia should have separate articles for both sub-sects as Wikipedia is now seen as an authoritative figure for 'true information' in these days. People who are not familiar with Hinduism much, may not understand the difference between Vishnu and His avatara Krishna. Just like 'The Father' and 'The Son' are both God (or part of God), but they are not the same (or equal), according to Hinduism, Vishnu and Krishna are also not the same, while both of Them, along with every creature of this universe, are the parts of the Paramatma or Supreme Soul. The difference between Vishnu & Krishna may seem pointless at first, but it has huge effect in Hindu practices and belief. All the scriptures and teachings related to Vishnu is spiritual and philosophical. While mythologies related to Krishna contains inappropriate contents like stealing clothes from women, adultery, killing his own clan (on earth) et cetera. 
I think the point is made why there should be two separate articles on both topics.
--Kawrno Baba (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ms Sarah Welch: Could you please inform me, besides books and research papers, exactly what else is considered as 'scholarly sources' in Wikipedia? - Kawrno Baba (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:RS for more details. You may also find good quality guidance to this and other related questions you may have at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating Krishnaism article from Vaishnavism article 

message: This article  -in its current state (16 January, 2021)- is highly offensive.
To the ardent materialist, a spiritual person is living in a dream world. The converse is also true.
The writers of this article have abused the forum, making a critique and denial of the majority of accepted facts about Indian and Vedic knowledge, but also of that culture's exceptional epistemological methods, which have self-preserved information via authoritative discipleship from pre-history.
To repeat, this article degrades both the seeker of truth and the so-called scholar that vomited up the latest fashionable whims of the false ego.
The nature of the self, the quality, forms, and pastimes of God, the sheer inconceivable cosmic multitude of His creations, and our duties as eternal servants are in this article completely ignored in favor of a catalogue of falsehoods, all to serve the personal gratification and false egos of its authors.
Bona fide, authoritative understanding of Vedic culture is delivered to The West and all through Srila Prabhupada. 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.42.190 (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A materialistic and arrogant assault on spirituality 

message: That Nara, the water deity is the basis of Narayana is wrong. The true meaning is as follows: Nara+Yana = Narayana (God, the vehicle or carrier of mankind). Lak0610 (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  That 1st century deity Bhaga is the basis of Bhagawat, is wrong. Bhagawat comes from Bhagwan or Supreme God. 

message: Dalal was misrepresented, while the other source on supposed Vedic roots was given undue weight. Clearly, someone gave a biased view on the origins of Vaishnavism; you correctly noticed the bias. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good that you double-check the sources, Wikipedians voluntarily or unwittingly can be wrong. Regards too. DayakSibiriak (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed Vedic roots 

message: * Oppose Merge - Ayyavazhi is a significant tradition in Hinduism. Also it may be regarded as an independent religion in its own right.
Redtigerxyz  Talk  11:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merge with [[Ayyavazhi]] 

message: Vaishnavism is major tradition in hinduism. Vaishnavism means worshiper and follower of vishnu, so for this article worshiping vishnu image is necessary. Vinay viniyl (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a much worse image. Also, you're a sockpuppet. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  About image editing  

message: I think :File:Devotees.jpg or a cropped :File:Popular print, album (BM 2003,1022,0.34 1).jpg would be a good fit for an image of the worship of Vishnu by devotees consistent with the Shaivism article. @Chariotrider555 @Redtigerxyz Chronikhiles (talk)  07:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Both seem to be illustrations of Satyanarayana puja, which is not particularly Vaishnava. Suggesting the Bhadrachalam temple festival picture.Redtigerxyz  Talk  10:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The image seems blurred if you notice the chamaras. If we were splitting hairs, the deities shown here are Rama and Sita if I had to guess rather than Vishnu and Lakshmi.  Chronikhiles (talk)  11:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image suggestions