Talk:Avatar/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Balarama or Buddha (Continued)

This is a continuation of the discussion Talk:Avatar#Balarama_or_Buddha. Ramv, the discussion is not complete. There are differing lists of the 10 avatars, and the point is not settled. It should be settled and agreed somehow, for what is here should be consistent with the Dashavatara article. This is likely a better place to have the conversation, since more people have it marked to watch and may engage in the discussion. I don't know how to resolve it. Also, when you sign your comments please use the symbol ~~~~ which can be found top left on your keyboard. This automatically causes a signature with date. Thanks. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are two websites that give different lists, one including Buddha and one with Balarama in his place. The article may require a referenced discussion. Otherwise it is only one preference given undue weight. Also see this PDF file where "Shakyamuni (the historical Buddha)" is given as 9th Avatar. Also here. There are many that list it as such, and thus simply reverting on this page is premature without further discussion. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I see the problem seems to have resolved itself. Dazedbythebell (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dazedbythebell,

When the representative heads of both the religions jointly declare that Buddha is not an avatar of Vishnu, do we have the right to overrule it?

Please see the wikipedia article named Gautama Buddha in Hinduism. It mentions the discussion between Jagadguru Sankaracharya, Jayendra Saraswati of Kanchi matha and Vipassana Acharya S. N. Goenka. It mentions that "Due to whatever reason some literature was written in India in the past in which the Buddha was declared to be a re-incarnation of Vishnu and other various false things about him, this was very unpleasant. In order to foster friendlier ties between Hindus and Buddhists we decide that whatever has happened in the past should be forgotten and such belief should not be propagated." Ramv (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither the Kanchi Shankaracharya is the head of Hinduism (the authority of Kanchi is questionable, it is not one of the four mathas established by Adi Shankaracharya) nor Goenka a religious leader of Buddhists. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed you said this same thing to Hoverfish above. But what Bkonrad said in his edit summary is also true: "references and the other linked article all support inclusion of Buddha." Thus perhaps a footnote could be added to the inclusion of Buddha in the list that gives some clarification of the issue and points out there is some controversy. The footnote could also link to the Gautama Buddha in Hinduism article. This is a better way to make your point than get into an edit war, where apparently the majority think it is good as it is. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is North - South divide. North India has Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, South India recognizes Balarama instead. Krishna-centric lists include both and remove Krishna, the "source of all avatars". Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As Mr. Redtigerxyz mentioned, it could be a case of North-South perceptions. But ignoring the perception of one set of people is not justice. Why not have Balarama as well in the list explaining with a note that certain section of people consider Balarama and others consider Buddha as the avatar. Ramv (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

To me what Redtigerxyz said above is of encyclopedic value. Wikipedia does not propagate beliefs or mediate for interfaith relations, but states that "according to source A ... and according to source B ..." so anyone can research further. If it possible, Ram's suggestion of including both in the list with notes about this, seems best. Hoverfish Talk 09:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright. If no one else has any objections, we will go ahead and modify the content as agreed here. Ramv (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem now is that there are eleven names for a term (Dashavatara) that means "ten descents" in Sanskrit. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Also it is now inconsistent with the other article, Dashavatara. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope my comment was not interpreted as adding one extra "descent". I corrected this. The note states that some other versions have Balarama instead of Gautam Buddha. It would be better, however, to specify in which parts of India each belief is held, if a reliable citation can be given for it. Hoverfish Talk 02:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The way Hoverfish has set the note I think is best, though as he says a citation hopefully stating who believes what and where in India would improve this even further. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dazedbythebell and Hoverfish,

I don't know about you guys, but I am a practicing Hindu and I know the Dasavatharams (thats how we pronounce it here in Tamilnadu) of Vishnu by heart from my childhood days. Now that you requested for citations, I did a casual search of Dasavatharam + Vishnu in Google and randomly looked at the search results. Except for Wikipedia and ISCKON sites, all the list that I peruse contains Balarama in the list. Check out this, " this and " this .

I agree that having eleven names in the list not the right way. But I am not happy with the way the list now depicts Balarama as just a side note. I tell you again - Buddha does not refer to Gautama Buddha (or Siddhartha). Buddha is the term given for the state of mind of an enlightened person. When Jayadevar included Buddha in his Dasavataram song, please do not misinterpret it as Gautama Buddha.

Is there a way to modify the article such that Balarama included in the list without sidelining him into a footnote? Ramv (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ramv, you are right that Balarama is part of Tamil Dashavatara; but [1] several references state that Buddha (Gautama Buddha) is included in Dashavatara. Even Jayadeva's Buddha is Gautama [2]

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Redtigerxyz,

The same Gita Govindam by Jayadeva that you cite, has this verse which just precedes the verse referring to Buddha.

vahasi vapuñi viçade vasanaà jaladäbham

hala-hati-bhéti-milita-yamunäbham

keçava dhåta-haladhara-rüpa jaya jagadéça hare

This verse refers to Balarama. You can check out the translation here or any other sources. Also, there are links in google books that mention Balarama.

By the way, Gita Govindam does not have a verse for Krishna Avatar. That does not stop us from leaving out Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu. Moreover, I repeat this again - Buddha does not mean Gautama Buddha (or Siddhartha). Buddha refers to an enlightened person [3] and apart from Gautama, there have been many Buddhas in history [4]. Ramv (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ramv, I do not cite Jayadeva's shloka as proof that Buddha is in Dashavatara. Jayadeva is Krishna-centric which includes both Balarama and Buddha; Krishna is the source of all avatars in this tradition. What I cite are secondary references that say Buddha in Hinduism is Gautama Buddha, "the Buddha". Please do not mix non-Hindu concepts of Buddhahood and 28 Buddhas with the concept of the Hindu Buddha. Like Buddha, Hinduism also assimilated Rishabha - "founder of Jainism" as per Jains - as an avatar (not Dashavatara) of Vishnu. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I wish I could give an answer from sources I can find, but unfortunately this is a quarrel among Hindus who know these scriptures better in their various forms. The problem here is that Wikipedia can accommodate a controversy when a person can give quotations by others. We are thus limited. We can't do original research. There appear to be differing translations and no clear authoritative source on how to discuss the controversy. Online sources seem to simply state it one way or the other, but never enter into a discussion of the controversy. One would need to do deeper research to provide a meaningful section or sub-article on the subject of the debates in India over the Dahavatara. If one is open to doing this research, and can provide sources, much of this discussion would be more meaningful. But a mere quarrel over it and pointing to websites and Wikipedia articles is not sufficient. Until someone who has reliable sources is willing to research a reliable secondary source on the controversy itself, there is little that can be done in the Wikipedia article. Hoverfish entered a footnote to at least address the controversy and its existence. But if one is not willing to find sources on the controversy, then it really has no place here. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

IMO, Dashavatara should tackle the controversy. "Alternative lists" already tackles the issue to certain extent. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the comment at the end should also have a link to Dashavatara#Alternative_lists. Dazedbythebell (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Brahma's Avatars

In the pages for Varaha and Matsya, these three Avataras are noted to be originally associated with Prajapati/Brahma. Should we add these to the page? --111.84.193.103 (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Varaha and Matsya are mentioned in the article as Avatars of Vishnu, subsection Bhagavata Purana. In the article of Varaha, it is mentioned that "Varaha was originally described as a form of Brahma, but later on was crystallized as the avatar of Vishnu." This is also made clear in the Matsya article. In this article, under Avatars of Brahma, we only have the Dasam Granth avatars. The section should be expanded to include the Shatapatha Brahmana version (though I can not verify if these two are the only Brahma avatars mentioned in that text) or also other texts mentioning avatars of Brahma. Hoverfish Talk 10:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avatar. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521022342/http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/3/en1 to http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/3/en1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Real meaning of the first three avatara

I had added a note giving the real meaning of the first three avatara, which has been removed without even the courtesy of a debate. And I'm from the tradition, not some Western Indology researcher who have always misrepresented the tradition in order to perpetuate a 19th century colonial myth. The poetic licence of traditional texts implies that they always need interpretation and paraphrasing of a teacher within the tradition, not translation by Sanskrit scholars. The texts are meaningless if they are not correctly interpreted. Ranjivk (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)