Talk:Krishnaism

Krishnaism

Wikidas, what do you think about duplicating sections of the Radha Krishna page for the Krishnaism page, such as the various religious traditions etc. I think that would help contextualize it. Any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There should be some structure as to how it branches - RK will be a branch of Krishnaism, and the main article will be RK. However the topic of Krishnaism is a larger one but may have only a synopsis of the article on RK and Krishna, to get it boiled down of course you can cut and paste. But if you keep it as it is the original will change, but this will not and thus you will have two versions of the same thing, so taking as a starting point - yes but more as a boiled down version, almost talking about main traditions of RK worship, rather then separating each. Wikidās ॐ 17:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that is a good plan. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

scope

this page seems to be duplicating Gaudiya Vaishnavism and/or Bhakti movement in scope. Clear delineation of scope is necessary, we cannot have duplicated articles merely on grounds of variant terminology. dab (𒁳) 10:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly there are many references to Krishnaism without references to Bhakti movements and Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Please see this bibliography that relates to this specific page and defines the scope, there are number of encyclopedic articles on it - for example HARDY, Friedhelm E.: Krsnaism. In: The Encyclopedia of Religion. Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not equal to Krishnaism just as the worship of Radha Krishna is not confined to Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Maybe discuss it at the project talk page WT:Krishna, that is where the proposal came from.Wikidās-ॐ 22:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite convinced. "Northern Krishnaism" is equivalent to Gaudiya Vaishnavism. There appears to be some sort of "Southern Krishnaism", but this is very obscure, and the article makes no attempt to delineate it. Clearly, "Krishnaism" is a valid term, but you need to make clear why this should be a standalone article rather than a redirect to Krishna, or a disambiguation page.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

dab (𒁳) 13:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

reviewing the few dozen google books/scholar hits for the term, I find that it is universally used as synonymous with Gaudiya Vaishnavism following Caitanya. There is also the term "Hare Krishnaism" which refers to ISKCON in particular. I can see no justification for this article as separate per WP:CFORK. It appears that Krishnaism in particular is a term coined by 19th century Indology for Gaudiya Vaishnavism in view of comparing it with Christianity. dab (𒁳) 13:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Dab, your search may however contain some nonacademic views and unreliable sources mixup, something you adamantly fight against in other places. You ether have to cite your references and make a case or accept the academic WP:RELIABLE references provided in the article. What you you are presenting is just one of the definitions. Standard dictionary definition is "worship of Krishna the 8th avatar of Vishnu." This is divided on to all historic references to early worship and different competing traditions, where Radha Krishna is worshiped, that are forming the scope of the WP:KRISHNA. WP:CFORK and WP:FRINGE are possibly your favorites and however one needs to carefully study the subject before labeling anything that does not fit in a set view. Lets try it again

Looking for a specialist in the field quote: An Introduction to Hinduism - Page 117 by Gavin D. Flood 1996

Indeed, the term 'Krsnaism' has been used to describe the cults of Krsna, reserving 'Vaisnavism' for cults focusing on Visnu in which Krsna is merely an avatar.

There are number of cults of Krishna, including south indian ones. Yes in the west the main one is ISKCON, however for this article ISKCON or Gaudiya are just part of the bigger picture. As in Hinduism: Past and Present by Axel Michaels, Barbara Harshav: Krishnaism is referred as four different sects of devotionalism: Page 23

Again in A Survey of Hinduism, Page 245 Klaus K. Klostermaier

points out to it being an early traditions of a variety;

These are not just sectarian sources, these are academic authorities in the field. Lets not jump to conclusions and confine the term to as it is understood in late mediaeval Bengal.

Moreover if you take Hopkins, he will again have a completely different perspective, all points of view need to be represented in this article, thus this article is not WP:CFORK Maybe its just a matter of spelling it the way academia spells it... Check the search below:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

--Wikidās-ॐ 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What is this article about?

At the moment the article distinguishes itself from Vaishnavism but makes no attempt to clarify the difference between "Krishnaism" and "Gaudiya Vaishnavism" (if there is one). If it is referring to the general worship of Krishna across all traditions of Hinduism then it should state this more clearly. The recent creation of many Krishna-related pages have huge overlaps with each other so unless they all lose their generality, merging them would be a better option. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking part in this discussion. I think we all have to agree that the article has to clarify the difference between Krishnaism and Gaudiya Vaishnavism, clearly, just as with the Swaminarayana branch and just as Vallabhacharyas line, it all should be addressed and should list the traditions more clearly. This page should provide the reference and summary to most of Krishna related pages that you are mentioning. Some of them are quite big and merging them will be quite impossible. Wikidās-ॐ 12:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidas. There are many traditions that need to be included such as Swaminarayan, Vallabhacharya's sampradaya, Manipur Vaishnavas, etc. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Swaminaryan says Shri Krishna is God

I am a little puzzled when swaminaryana followers, especially Baps says that Swaminaryan is God.

Here's what he said: Swaminaryan said in verse 115 of their scripture, Shikshapatri, "Shree Krishna Bhagwan and Shree Krishna Bhagwan's incarnations alone are worthy of meditation. Similarly, Shree Krishna Bhagwan's images are worthy. And men or devas, even if they are devotees of Shree Krishna Bhagwan or brahmavettaa (knowers of divinity), are still not worthy of meditation - and thus one should not meditate upon them."

Can a Swaminarayan follower clarify this?

This seems to contradict their statements; Anyone who prays to a human instead of Krishna is not worthy of mediation.

Also note that Swaminaryan believed in the Smarta panchadevata system; that's why he had murtis of Devi, Shiva linga, Krishna and Ganesh.

Thanks,

Raj2004 (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Raj, you have hit the nail on the head. Krishna was Swaminarayan Bhagwans isht dev, and Swaminarayan himself called Shri Krishna the almighty lord supreme. In the temples of the Swaminarayan Sampraday he founded, the murtis he himself installed as central deities were that of Narnarayan Dev, Laxminayan Dev, Radha Krishna Dev etc. and his own form, Hari Krishna Maharaj or Ghanshyam Maharaj stood on the side of these murtis. This is also mentioned in the Shikshaparti as you noted. Till date, this is followed in all Swaminarayan Mandirs worldwide, where the central deity is that of a Narnarayan Dev, Laxminarayan Dev or another form of Krishna along with Hari Krishna Maharaj/Ghanshayam Maharaj (forms of Swaminarayan) on the side. However, BAPS, a group that broke off from the original sampraday and formed its own group considers Swaminarayan himself as the almighty lord supreme. Hence, the central deities in all BAPS Swaminarayan Mandirs (note they add BAPS before Swaminarayan Mandirs to distinguish themselves from the sampraday) is that of Swaminarayan. Why this is so - I have no idea. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok Around the Globe, then why does your sect place a murti of him next to Shri Krishna? Is it because your swaminaryan sect venerate him as a saint like how some Madhva followers venerate Raghavendra Swami as a great saint?

Or do they venerate him as an avatar of Krishna? This seems to contradict his own statement in Shikshaparti? If Swaminaryan is the same as Krishna, would he not have said so in the Shikshaparti? Why would Swaminarayan privately say that he is an avatar of Krishna but publicly say otherwise in Shikshaparti?

Here are my comments citing relevant scholars from the Ishta deva article:

Within a number of Hindu traditions, both presently and in the past, living people have claimed (or are claimed by followers) to be avatars of a divine or Supreme being. In these cases followers have then in some instances worshipped these individuals as Ishta-devas. Although these tend to be minority groups within Hindism, it has been a growing tendency in modern times (the followers of Sai Baba being one such example). This often attracts criticism from other Hindu traditions who do not share the same belief.

Swami Tapasyananda of Ramakrishna Mission, in his book, Bhakti Schools of Vedanta, pg. 50, on commentating about this phenomenon, said:

The avatar doctrine has been excessively abused by many Hindus today and we have the strange phenomenon of every disciple of a sectarian Guru claiming him to be an avatar. Christianity has therefore limited the Divine Incarnation as a one-time phenomenon. The theory has strong points and equally strong defects but it surmounts the gross abuse of the doctrine indulged in by many Hindus.

Thus, if followers respect and revere the guru, it is only proper if they are using him as a conduit to God, and respect him as a teacher.

However, Swami Sivananda has said that a guru can be likened to God if he himself has attained realization and is a link between the individual and the Absolute. Such a guru, according to his definition and interpretation, should have actually attained union with God, inspire devotion in others, and have a presence that purifies all. Such a case is limited in contemporary times.

As early as the seventeenth century, a Vaishnavite saint, Raghavendra Swami, in his last speech before departing from the mortal world, warned about the dangers of fraudulent gurus by saying:

"The search for knowledge is never easy. As the Upanishads say it is like walking on the razor's edge. But for those who have strong faith and put in sustained effort and have the blessings of Shi Hari and guru this is not difficult. Always keep away from people who merely perform miracles without following the shastras and yet call themselves God or guru. I have performed miracles, and so have great persons like Shrimadacharya. These are based on yoga siddhi and the shastras. There is no fraud or trickery at all. These miracles were performed only to show the greatness of God and the wonderful powers that one can attain with His grace. Right knowledge (jnana) is greater than any miracle. Without this no real miracle can take place. Any miracle performed without this right knowledge is only witchcraft. No good will come to those who perform such miracles and also those who believe in them."

It seems that Swaminarayan appears to be another great saint who claims to be God.

Thanks,

Raj2004 (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayan just as many others in his line and just as Vallabhacharya in his marga would be worshiped on the level of God, as per tradition, however his followers, and especially 'his family' I guess, have elevated him to be same as Krishna or his full avatar, and later on BAPS elevated him above Krishna. Last one is clearly a schism, where as being avatar of Krishna is a good definition and possibly a good category, there are many types of avatars of Krishna and one of them is guru or acharya, so by labeling him avatar of Krishna we both dismiss BAPS deviation from tradition, and uphold original views expressed by himself, who never installed his own murti without Krishna by his side. Wikidās ॐ 06:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, one could tag Swaminarayan as an Avatar of Krishna. Just one correction, Swaminarayan himself installed the murtis of Hari Krishna Maharaj next to Krishna (who resides in the form of Gopinathji Maharaj in the centre of this temple) in one of the temples he himself made(in Gadhada). He did not give any measurements for this, however it is said that when it was made, it was the of the exact measurement of Swaminarayan bhagwan on earth. It is believed that he gave divine darshan to the sculptor, giving him his measurements. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it would still have to be something along the lines of Gurus whose disciples claim they are an avatar of Krishna, as a subcat of Hindu gurus, since it's not a widely held belief in Hinduism. ~ priyanath ^talk 14:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that it is subject to HInduism as such, as we do not say its Hindu avatar of Krishna, the fact that Krishna has avatars may or may not be accepted as a fact in Hinduism, but it is a fully accepted fact in Krishnaism. As long as it is so, why would you object? Wikidās ॐ 15:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is all about Reliable Sources (WP:RS). Your proposal would need third party, mainstream, academic reliable sources that include a specific modern Guru as a "Hindu God" or an "Avatar of Krishna" - as seen by a wide audience, not just their followers, or a few editors on Wikipedia. Otherwise, it would be Gurus whose disciples claim they are an avatar of Krishna or Gurus whose disciples claim they are God. I think there are sources that would support the last two. ~ priyanath ^talk 16:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

i agree that there should be some sources produced to the 'belief' that he is avatar of Krishna. ATG do you have any? I can also look it up, I have to agree that some or even many may not accept it, but if reliable sources support this claim, then it should be included Wikidās ॐ 16:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if there are sources that show that some followers believe he is an avatar of Krishna, then Gurus whose disciples claim they are an avatar of Krishna would work. I'm sure there must be such sources, since some followers here seem to think so. ~ priyanath ^talk 17:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I do know that according to the Williams book, Swaminarayan intimated the Lord Bishop of Calcutta in an 1825 meeting that he is a form of Krishna. Off hand I do not have anything else - but I will look. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 17:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that such a long description is appropriate. Avataras are described in the sastra, if there is clear bona fide Sanskrit work that describes one an avatara, then even if majority do not agree, that does not matter. Its not a democracy, its just categorization. In this case reliable direct mention in sastra or tradition is applicable. However Raymond Brady Williams (p. 75-70) quotes another source on SN:

It is in the chapter on Structure of SN ideology, Swaminarayan as manifestation of Krishna: It starts with words: A more widely held position is that Sahajananad was a manifestation of Krishna. Bishop Heber understood him to be saying that Krishna was the form of god which the group worshiped "adding something like a hint, that another avatar of Krishna, or the Sun, had taken place in Himself" (R. Heber 1846). The section clearly suggests that the sect is Krishnavite, and that Sahajanand taught that Krishna is the primary object of worship. Maybe better manifestation of Krishna rather then an avatar?Wikidās ॐ 20:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Its (sic) not a democracy, its (sic) just categorization." No, it's about reliable third party, neutral, academic sources. Even using the source above, which only quotes non-third party, non-neutral sources, the category would still be Gurus who "hint" they are an avatar of Krishna. ~ priyanath ^talk 01:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree its not about democracy, however we should know that according to WP:NOTART historically, wikipedia policies and guidelines (with the exception of Wikipedia:Overcategorization) were developed as if all the rules which could apply to articles could apply equally well to categories. But, categories and articles are fundamentally different and therefore have different requirements for what are considered accepted practices and structure. Basically give readers a degree of faith on this one=:-) See also Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines. Thanks. Wikidās ॐ 04:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your earlier comments: I do not think that it is subject to HInduism as such, as we do not say its Hindu avatar of Krishna, the fact that Krishna has avatars may or may not be accepted as a fact in Hinduism, but it is a fully accepted fact in Krishnaism

This is WP:OR and not backed up by any reliable sources. Not to mention the dispute among followers of Swaminarayan regarding Swaminarayan being supreme god or incarnation of Krishna as you suggest. Also, I tend to think that there are issues regarding WP:notability of term "Krishnaism" as either a term for set of practices within or outside of Hinduism. In either case "Krishnaism" is not a separate religion.

So once again, to list Swaminarayan as an incarnation of Krishna you would need to show, through an array of reliable and neutral sources, that Hindus in general consider Swaminarayan as an incarnation of Krishna.

To list Swaminarayan as "Guru whose followers consider him to be an incarnation of Krishna", you would need to show (again through reliable sources) that official and widespread position of Swaminarayan sect and its members supports the the view point that Swaminarayan is considered as incarnation of Krishna as opposed to the "supreme god". And also a note regarding disputed "supreme god" status (if any).

Best Wishes 67.169.0.250 (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I can show you an official and widespread opinion that Sikhs, Jains and Buddists are hindus. It does not mean we will be looking at categorizing them as well? That is not their belief. I prefer discussion it with members who have some experience and know-how to resolving POV from the proposed category - the only requirement for categories. You must be IP-delusional about WP:Notability, so we will leave it at that without looking at proper sources, this discussion is about the category, if there is a WP:RS stating this belief is there in his group, then he can be categorized. If one has Guru-deva, and according to his groups views he is Guru-deva, you do not need to prove that he is Guru-deva of every single hindu. What is common belief of every single hindu anyway? Show me... two for grabs... We need however to follow the rules and base on both proper sources and to be NPOV. So that is the key, Williams is an accepted reliable source, that confirmed as well that the teaching of the sect are that of Krishnavite. Any other sources? Wikidās ॐ 10:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikidas I disagree. If one has Guru-deva, and according to his groups views he is Guru-deva, one does need to prove that he is Guru-deva of every single hindu. Swaminarayan concept is primarily limited to Gujarati followers. The worship of Shiva, or Vishnu is throughout India.

Raj2004 (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

One can not be Guru-deva of every single Hindu (that was my point), and I agree that Shiva and Vishnu in completely different level in the framework of Hinduism. I am however waiting to have any reliable sources saying that Swaminarayan is avatar of Krishna in the opinion of Gujaratis. So far I have found none, so what are we talking about? So far we only heard that he 'maybe' is a manifestation of Krishna and he told his followers to worship Krishna. Wikidās ॐ 12:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, I didn't mean that way but Swaminarayan has a big following in Gujarat. However, I do not believe that his followers are even the majority in Gujarat. It seems that BAPS consider Swaminarayan to be God, while other Swaminarayan followers believe in Krishna as their Ishta deva and some of those other swaminarayan followers may believe that Swaminarayn is an avatar of Krishna.

Raj2004 (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, unless there is any reliable evidence we can leave it at this. I can see that BAPS are a clear schism, and unless there is any evidence from the mainstream or majority of SN Sampradaya followers, I would leave it as it is. Wikidās ॐ 13:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly neither "Hindu deities" nor "Hindu gods" is the right category. I would suggest adding "Bhagwan" Swaminarayan article to Ishta Deva category as alluded to above by Raj2004. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In a separate, unrelated article, the user of IP address 72.204.47.141 pointed out the List of people who have been considered avatars. Should Swaminarayan be added to the list, and should any and/or all of the people listed be placed in a similar category? --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 13:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be a NPOV decision. List and category have same criteria for inclusion and a category can be converted into a list. What would SN people say? Wikidās ॐ 14:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have created the new Category:People who have been considered avatars, adding figures currently on the list to the category. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 16:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Shruti, maybe have a look here as its discussed for deletion, I support the attempt, even I do not consider this category a valid thing theologically. Btw it was filed improperly as far as I know its not CfD as such... Wikidās ॐ 22:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In this Kali yug era that we are in, many persons claim to have a Godly status or even call themselves GOD, I really do not want to list the names but when it comes to questioning weather Swaminarayan Avtar is GOD? It is clearly black & white, without a shadow of a doubt he is Bhagwan (GOD) Swaminarayan, an incarnation of Para Brahma Purushottam Narayan Svayam Bhagwan whom is always residing in the great Akshardham or you my refer to it as GolokDham, VaikunthDham, Bhadrikashram or even SwetDham etc etc. That very same Swaroop has come many times before in the forms of Varman Avtar, Ram Avtar, NarNarayan Avtar, Krishna Avtar, Matsay Avtar etc etc etc to name a few and he will incarnate many times again, the important fact to remember is that Svayam Bhagwan come in many roops(forms) but the Swaroop(Supreme Soul) is always the same.

Bhagwan always incarnates himself when his divine help is needed as mentioned in the Bhagwat Gita 4:7, Shrimad Bhagwat 10:50-10 and many other Scriptures. Just like all Avtars before have had a aim to be incarnated on this planet so did Bhagwan Swaminarayan, his was to destroy evil and establish Ekantik-dharm (Religion based on morality, knowledge, non-attachment and devotion) to help everybody attain Kalyan (salvation). Just like Krishna Bhagwan and Arjurn where born into a Kshatria family they stood up to their duties to fight good over bad, Swaminarayan Bhagwan was born into a Bhramin to follow his duty which was to teach the true Vedic teachings of Sanatan Dharam to re-establish Religion.

The advant of Bhagwan Swaminarayan has been written in many scriptures such as:

It is stated in the Padma puran (one of the 18 purans of our religion as directed by god supreme):

II Datatrayam krutyuge, tretayaam raghunandana, dvapare vasudevaha, kalou swami vrushatmaja II

This means that in satyug I (god) will be born as datatray, in tretayug as raam son of the raghu clan, in dwapar yug I will come as Krishna son of vasudev and in kaliyug ill come named Swami son of Dharm (Dharmadev).

It also states in Vishnu dharmottar:

II Pakhandbahuleloke swami namna hari swayam, papank nimagnam tajuddhaaryishyati II

II Mahadharmanvye punye, naamna paapvinashke, hariprasad vivrasya, swami namna hari svayam II

This means that in kaliyug where evil triumphs, I purna purushotam will arrive on the earth named hari. I will redeem many souls and increase their punya (good deeds). I Swami will be born to Hari prasad.

• note Dharm dev (father of Swaminarayan Bhagwan) is stated as in our scriptures as Dev Sharma and Hari prasad and his mother is named as Bhakti, premvati or bala.

In addition, Padma Puran, Brahmand Puran, Vishvaksen Samhita, Vishnu Dharmottar Puran also forecast the coming of Swaminarayan Bhagwan referring to "name of Sahajanand" "son of Dharmadev" "known as Swami" etc.

As an additional comment, the Samudrik Shastras state that God and God only has the 16 marks and symbols on His feet. In the Padma Puran Brahmaa tells Narad that He has witnessed sixteen sybols/marks on the Lord of all incarnations' feet. The very sixteen symbols/marks can be found on the lotus feet of Sahajanand Swami. Look here http://www.swaminarayan.nu/satsang/feet.shtml

The arrival of an avatar is accompanied by a purpose. The purpose of Krishna avatar is well discussed by Krishna Himself. In the Srimad Bhagavatam, Krishna declares His intentions of coming on this earth as well as His intention to return. Quote: "haniñyämi balaà hy etad bhuvi bhäraà samähitam mägadhena samänétaà vaçyänäà sarva-bhübhujäm akñauhiëébhiù saìkhyätaà bhaöäçva-ratha-kuïjaraiù mägadhas tu na hantavyo bhüyaù kartä balodyamam" 10th Skandha 50th Adhyay Shlok 7 and 8

“Since it is such a burden on the earth, I will destroy Jarasandha’s army, consisting of akñauhiëés of foot soldiers, horses, chariots and elephants, which the King of Magadha has assembled from all subservient kings and brought together here. But Jarasandha himself should not be killed, since in the future he will certainly assemble another army”

Quote: "etad-artho ’vatäro ’yaà bhü-bhära-haraëäya me saàrakñaëäya sädhünäà kåto ’nyeñäà vadhäya ca" shloka 9

“This is the purpose of My present incarnation—to relieve the earth of its burden, protect the pious and kill the impious”

Quote: “anyopi dharma-rakshayaii deha sambhriyate maya viramayapy adharmasya kale prabhavatau kvacit” shlok 10

"I also assume other bodies to protect religion and to end irreligion whenever it flourishes in the course of time"

It can be concluded that the evil people will return, many of them as rulers and kings indulging in vices - and for the removal of such adharma the Lord will assume other forms.

Turning to the Vasudev Mahatmay (Skandha Puran, Vishnu Khand) it clearly states that the vow by Lord Krishna is indeed further verified in more detail:

Quote: "Maya krshnen nihitaha sarujunen raneshu ye Pravartayishyantya suraaste tvadharma yada kshitau. Dharmadeva ttada murtau, narnarayanatmana Pravrte-pi kalau Brahman! Bhutvaham samago dvijaha Munishapannrutam praptam, sarshim janakaatmanaha Tato-vita gurubhyoham saddharmam sthapayannaja" 18th Adhyay Shloks 43-44

“When the asuras who were killed by Myself and Arjuna begin to spread wickedness on earth, I will be born in a Bhramin family to Dharmadev and Murti from Nar Narayana. I, with many other rishis, will receive a shaap (curse) from a Muni to come on the earth to a Samved Bhramin family to protect the religion from evil gurus and rulers.”

The Lord clearly defines how He will return to destroy that evil He spoke of earlier. He will be born to Dharmadev and Bhaktidevi (as did Swaminarayan Bhagwan), to a Samvedi Brahmin family (as was Swaminarayan Bhagwan). The incident of the sabha in Badrik Ashram and Duravasa Rishi's curse is also mentioned here.

---

The clear cut linage of our Acharys through to Bhagwan Swaminarayan and right up to Shriman Narayan which is the name of GOD that has been used in the Vedas, can be found here http://www.shreeswaminarayanmandirbhuj.org/guruparampara.html

---

Thus it is clear that God returned to establish ekantik dharma against the evil elements that had returned from the time of Vasudev Shree Krshna.

It is true that Swaminarayan Bhagwan advocated the worship of Radha-Krishna and all of Avtars purley for the reason that they all the incarnations of the same Supeme Being.

I can understand something like this can take time to understand and to accept but than their is no rush because even 200 years after Lord Krishna, most Hindu's where not aware whom he really was..... infact during his time 56,000,000 people, most of them being his family members did not come to even accept that he was Svayam Bhagwan himself. Raj - सनातन धर्म (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bhudiya2, thanks for the statement of faith. We are mainly interested in the words of Swaminarayan himself or sources rather then some other expressions, however controversial. Some of your words sounded like you were trying to convert us to the right path:-), that is very sweet of you. Wikidās ॐ 00:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, Thank YOU for this opportunity, I was not trying to convert that is the job of the preachers and Swamis, I was only trying to show the facts and if you want the words of Swaminarayan himself than fine I'll put them on when I have some more time but just to start you off; in the Vachanamrut(Swaminarayan faith Scripture) he has mentioned his true self in their many times I'll post these quotes asap and also in the one Kirtan "Aja mare orade re" that Swaminarayan Bhagwan partly created, he reveals his true identity. Raj - सनातन धर्म (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well at the end of this, I think it would be better to catogorise it as Hindu Deities rather than People who have been considered avatars. A deity is one who is prayed to in the temple, which Swaminarayan is, hence I dont see a problem with that. Also, I would like to suggest that the category Forms of Krishna for the pages of NarNarayan, LaxmiNarayan, RadhaKrishna etc. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 12:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Walls" :
  • {{cite book |author=WALLS, Andrew F. |title=The cross-cultural process in Christian history: studies in the transmission and appropriation of faith |publisher=Orbis Books |location=Maryknoll, N.Y |year=2002 |pages= |isbn=1-57075-373-3 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate= }}
  • {{cite book |author=Walls, Andrew F. |title=The cross-cultural process in Christian history: studies in the transmission and appropriation of faith |publisher=Orbis Books |location=Maryknoll, N.Y |year=2002 |pages=p. 270 |isbn=1-57075-373-3}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Krishnaism and Christianity

Found stmt in intro:

and some historians suggested that both Krishnaism and Christianity have evolved from the common source of "the savior-God religion".^{[dubious – discuss][8]}

"Dubious" is the understatement of the week. Rather much more like ^{[wishful thinking from sir X, know-nil-zero-pundit][8]}. The predecessor to Christianity is Judaism. It even uses the books of Judaism that streches backward to about 800 BC, and describes attestable historical events about 1000 BC and before. The conceptual distance from hinduic cyclic to abrahamite linear thinking is about as large as possible distance between two mind-sets, all other religions falling inbetween. There are no biblical hints whatsoever indicating that Judaism emerging from dharmic thinking. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw the sources later in the text. It seems some 19th century authors actually tried to vindicate that hypothesis. I think it is not needed in the intro, since it gives undue weight to a fringy theory with few or no contemporary adherents, for the rest, the article seems to be bent towards comparing Krishnaism with Christianity more often than seems reasonable to me, instead of just comparing Krishnaism with other forms of Vaishnavisms. For example, in section Definition there is no need for such comparisons, they could instead be collected to Relationship to Christianity that rather would be named Comparisons to Christianity.

BTW: being a Christian myself, I cannot understand why one can confuse the two religions at all, Jesus Christ is the avatara-God that sacrifices himself to pay for the karma of humans in this life only, so to create eternal moksha, as an alternative to drowning the humankind in a deluge so that only one family of humans survive, while Krishnaism has nothing like that, he only offers temporary moksha if humans love him over everything else, which is just one tiny tenet of four in the golden rule. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Move it around. The two religions are connected by at least the concept of love of god and sacrifice (of a devotee/perfect teacher) in the process for the sake of suffering souls. So go ahead WP:BOLD/ Wikid^as© 22:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of striking parallels between Christianity and Krishnaism, two religions emerging near-simultaneously about 2,000 years ago. This has been given due consideration in 19th century scholarly literature, and it is only WP:DUE to address it. Of course it is naive or far too simplistic to suggest that the two religions descend from an earlier "savior-God religion". But it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the two religions aren't wholly independent of one another in origin. It's basically the same ideology placed on top of existing religion (Hinduism in one case, Judaism in the other) at roughly the same point in time. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

700 years of difference is farfetched as "near-simultaneously". The ideology differs a gulf of light-years: Jesus is a human troublemaker, a Son of God, or a Face of God, that sacrifices his life to save humankind from sins (annulling karma). It's an activist religion requiring equality and active charity. Whatever Krishnaism is, it's not that. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Was Krishna "crucified"? to atone for our sins? (Hindus says no).
• [1] Given the pronounced syncretic tendency of Hinduism, it is safe to assume that any odd tales of Krishna's being crucified arose only after the existence of Christian proselytism, in imitation of the Christian narrative.
• [2] Almost every correlation between Krishna and Jesus can be traced to Kersey Graves, a 19th century author who believed Christianity was created from pagan myths. Though his works have been proven by scholars to be false and poorly researched (Source), many still ignorantly refer to his arguments not knowing they are easily disproved by simply comparing the Bible to the Hindu texts.

We shouldn't perpetuate this kind of pseudoscience. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Trying to balance Krishnaism and Christianity

I'm refactoring the section Krishnaism and Christianity. The facts are that some, namely anti-Christians on one hand, and syncretic Hindus on quite another hand, try to allege that Krishnaism and Christianity are related, while Christians try to falsify.

I believe that there is almost no academic debate in the topic, but it is hard to verify reliably. The reason, I think, is that Kersey Graves originated most of the arguments for a connection, and that those arguments are for some 30-40% easily disprovable by just looking up the facts in Wikipedia, for example:

Graves states	Wikipedia states
Krishna was born 25 december	no he was born 18 july
Krishna was step son to a carpenter	no he was step son to a noble
Krishna's mom was named Maya	no she was named Devaki

The section should read that there is a comparison, but that it is a fringe meme which is not academically accepted. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It would help if someone could tell me what's the ethics of Krishnaism. (The ethics of Christianity is the golden rule, peace making and charity, and some lesser behavioral rules). I simply don't get it; the article alleges that it is submission to Krishna, which tells me absolutely nothing: every religion requires some kind of submission. What's the real ethics??! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone that could affirm Ethical Life by Harry Redner? If so (I refused to believe it for thinking the best of them, but if it is that bad) Krishnaism is the straight opposite of the class-less rebellious, charity-activist Christianity. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Merged into Vaishnavism

This article has been merged into Vaishnavism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Has been created the new text. Now, there's no a duplicate information. DayakSibiriak (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)