Talk:Vaiśravaṇa

message: I suggest merging Bishamonten with Vaisravana, as Bishamonten is still considered a form of the Buddhist deity and, despite developing a local characterization (not untypical of Buddhist deities) has not become a totally independent deity. RandomCritic 17:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: User:Redtigerxyz made an error in interpreting the Monier-Williams dictionary entry p. 1026.  I am giving this explanation to avoid a further revert cycle.
The entry does not say that Vaiśravaṇa means "son of Vaishrava" -- such a word doesn't even appear.  Nor does it say that "Vaishrava" is an epithet of Kubera.    Rather, it says that Vaiśravaṇa is a patronymic (i.e. in form, as a vṛddhi derivative) whose guṇa base is viśravaṇa; where it says "cf. g. śivâdi" it means to compare the similar pair (guṇa) śiva / (vṛddhi) śaiva and similar constructions (hence -ādi, which here means et cetera).  It should be noted that while Monier-Williams uses the term patronymic to refer to structures of the śaiva type, the word śaiva itself does not necessarily mean "son or descendant of Śiva" but refers to a variety of other relations, e.g. belonging, sacred to, or worshipping Śiva.
Where the definition says "esp. of Kubera" it does not mean that Vaiśravaṇa means "son of Kubera"; rather it means that it is used as a name to refer to Kubera, and as an adjective, of things related to Kubera.  Hence the definitions "relating or belonging to Kubera" (quoted from the Mahābhārata) and the various compounds, e.g. Vaiśravaṇânuja, i.e. Vaiśravaṇa-anuja "Vaiśravaṇa('s)-younger brother", i.e., Kubera's younger brother.
I hope this clarifies matters. RandomCritic (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  "patronymic" by definition in English means "Of, relating to, or derived from the name of one's father or a paternal ancestor."  starts Kubera is called Vaiśravaṇa, as son of Vaiśravas (Vishrava).  in its glossary interprets Vaiśravaṇa as patronymic as well as son of Vaiśravas. In this context, the definition of MW says that the epithet is used a patronymic esp. of Kubera and Ravana, both of which are sons of Vaiśravas. Vaiśravaṇa-anuja "Vaiśravaṇa('s)-younger brother", further it says "(name) of Ravana". Also, the article misinterprets  vṛddhi derivative = patronymic. Nowhere does MW say that, also "the root vi-śru "hear distinctly", (passive) "become famous"." is WP:OR. MW does not say that. Check whose mistake it is? --Redtigerxyz  Talk  16:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is totally false.  I cannot help Redtigerxyz's inability to read a technical dictionary, or his unfamiliarity with Sanskrit.  But he could at least have read the definition of vi-śru on the top of the center column on p. 992, and not carelessly made accusations of "OR".  I am afraid I must ask him to stop making 'corrections' of things he does not understand. RandomCritic (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  For record p. 992 linked. It says nothing about "Vaiśravaṇa is a vṛddhi derivative (used, e.g., for patronymics) of the Sanskrit proper name Viśravaṇa from the root vi-śru". This is WP:OR, which is evident . It seems someone's supposed expertise in Sanskrit has compelled him to read more in the technical dictionary than what is written in it. People should not assume that their supposed expertise would prevent others - who they presume to be dumb -  will challenge their OR. I have also given links to explicit references which say Vaiśravaṇa is a patronymic - son of Vaiśravas. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  15:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Redtigerxyz's mistake

message: I've noticed there appears to be quite a tradition floating around concerning "white," "yellow," "red," "green," ... "jambhalas" - at least when searching out artwork/'meditation aids' and that sort of thing.  However, I can't seem to track down exactly *which* tradition this concept originates in, and the background necessary to understand it properly.  (Particularly, random websites imply that each color represents something like an avatar of a different entity from higher up(?) the pantheon, while this article treats him as a single entity.)  Anyone know what this is about?  It's also difficult to find interpretation/discussion re: the mantras ascribed to each.  
[In fact, I've just sat through the video linked at http://www.kechara.com/peace-centre/video/david-lai-on-dzambalas-iconography/ , and at 23:30 the speaker dives into the symbology of the different colors, but treats them as instantiations of one single "jambhala" entity rather than the more diverse backstories I'm seeing elsewhere?] --69.177.114.231 (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Multicolor" tradition? 

message: Although their iconography and function is similar - Vaiśravaṇa (tib. རྣམ་ཐོས་སྲས rnam thos sras) and Jambhala (tib. ཛམ་བྷ་ལ dzam bha la) - are considered separate deities. This article currently confuses the two.Chris Fynn (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Vaiśravaṇa and Jambhala