Jump to content

Talk:Vithoba/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Split proposal

[edit]

I propose the article be split into 2:

  • 1 for the deity
  • other for the temple

Just like Venkateswara and Tirumala Venkateswara Temple are 2 articles. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They are two different subjects and there is enough information/references for an article on each. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it should be done. However what will be included in the deity page? Its not so clear for me what goes where, as its for Tirupati temple/Balaji. Wikidās ॐ 19:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vithoba temple, Pandharpur is formed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on the article in a few days and plan to cover these points: The deity article will include:

  • Legends
  • Major temples: including main center of worship
  • Literature dedicated to Vithoba
  • Warkari movement
  • Festivals
  • Involution of deity: From form of Shiva to Vishnu
  • Importance in Maharashtra

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comments

[edit]
  • This statement comes as a surprise to me. According to M. S. Mate, the devotee Pundalik (believing Pundalik to a historical figure, rather than a mythical one) was instrumental in coaxing the Hoysala king Vishnuvardhana to build the Pandharpur temple to Vishnu. The deity "Vitthal" was named upon the builder king Bittidev, the alias of Vishnuvardhana.[5]
Vishnuvardhana, the Hoysala king went as far north as Lakkundi in Gadag district before being defeated by Chalukya commander Achugi of Gulbarga. I dont believe Vishnuvardhana ever had the opportunity to cross the Krishna river. Perhaps you mean Veera Ballala II who is known to have reached Gulbarga which puts him in range of Pandarpur at the Maharashtra-Karnataka border?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the ref. [1]--Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. If the temple were consecrated in 1189, as mentioned in the article, then it would be the time of Veera Ballala II. He had successful clashes with Seuna Bilhama in 1189-1190 in the general area under consideration. But then a early 12th century date for the temple is also postulated which is during the time of Vishnuvardhana. The fact that Vishnuvardhana (and his descendents) took to Vaishnavism and built many Vaishnava temples in south Karnataka certianly adds some credibility to the theory of his influence over Pandarpur temple, although Pandarpur is still a ways away.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, the Pandharpur temple may OR MAY NOT be built in 1189 AD. The date is disputed. I did not find the name "Veera Ballala II" in Vithoba context anywhere. Also Mate presses Vishnuvardhana as the creator to explain the name Vithu, derived from the king's name and the king being a Vaishnava.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • V. P. Chavan says that "Pandurang Stotra" by Adi Shankaracharya, if geninue, establishes that Vithoba worship existed as early as 5th century AD, the period of it's author.
I think the dating of Adi Shankaracharya is not firm and ranges mostly from 7-8th century. More as I go along.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't get you. disambiguation?? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean English language translation.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several places where "dash" is used. This is a style preference. Generally ndash looks better, but others may not agree. (ex:Rakhumai - "mai" means mother).
Generally i use the Sanskrit name then the English meaning. If at times, the order is reversed, please excuse you. I have changed the order in as many instances i found. Please change the order if some are left out.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consorts section: This is confusing to a person not intimate with Hindu lore. Simplyfy the statement Rukmini is traditionally viewed as the wife of Krishna who is considered a form of Vishnu and form of Lakshmi - Vishnu's consort.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do i remove the Vishnu part - bolded above ???--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Something like "Rukmini is traditionally viewed as the wife of Krishna. Krishna is considered a form of Vishnu whose consort is Lakshmi".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Worship section, while it may be easy for a Hindu to understand the phrase arati to awaken the god at about 3 am, those who are unfamiliar with this form of worship may find it a little obscure. If there is a way to explain the significance, it should be done. Also, the word "god" is used often, I feel the word "deity" is perhaps better suited as Vithoba is a version of God Vishnu or God Shiva or both. But this is a sensitive issue, so I prefer not to pass judgement. When discussing about the physical attributes, such as the cloathing ritual, it is perhaps better to use the term "cloating the image" rather than than "cloathing the god". Again this is a sensitive issue.
god is used here as a male deity and not as the monotheistic, which is God with a capital God. I have usually used image for rituals, only the word god appears in waking up and sleeping ritual as it sounds more confusing to say the image is waken up. Some terms of Sanskrit jargon like arati or puja can not be summed up coorrectly in a short description, so i left them so with a link. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Badava was a speeliing error for Badva brahmins.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will get back and finish reading this article in a day or two. I have been very busy with other things. Then, one more proof read for consistancy etc. You should still consider getting an experienced copy editor to help you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting link to the Hoysala connection with the temple at Padharpur.[2] Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this link in the article (V. P. Chavan says that "Pandurang Stotra" by ...) and it links to a Marathi page on devotional songs I presume. Perhaps you should replace that link with a proper citation to avoid "circular reasoning".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link of Marathi wiki, which has the complete text of Pandurang Stotra in Sanskrit, and the Marathi translation. It is not the ref for "V. P. Chavan says", for that a ref is available atend of sentence.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vithoba/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

  • Expand the lead to better summarize the entire article.
  • " Bibliography" section should be sorted last name, first name.

 Done --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove the periods at the end of image captions that are not sentences per WP:MOS#Captions.

 Done --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. It is a great co-incidence that the GA review comes on the holy day of Ashadhi Ekadashi - the biggest festival of Vithoba.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead should be significantly expanded and probably split into two paragraphs, per WP:LEAD

 Done If you feel some points are missing, please tell the sections, I will be happy to improve the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, some very stubby (and unreferenced) paragraphs including "There are numerous, conflicting theories about the origins of the names of the deity.", and "Another name Pandharinath relates to Vithoba being "the lord of Pandhari (a name of Pandharpur)".
    • "There are numerous, conflicting theories about the origins of the names of the deity." does not need a ref as 4-5 diff theories that do not support each other are listed. The sentence can be removed by the reviewer, if he feels
    • Ref for Pandharinath added.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Krishna[38]) on t" – ref goes after punctuation marks per WP:FN

 Done --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "is a 3 feet 9 inches tall," – measurements such as this should be converted to metric units as well, preferably with {{convert}}

 Done --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall great job. This article meets the Good Article criteria and has therefore been passed. Gary King (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyeditor's questions

[edit]
  • I ran into a couple of things last night that I thought I should ask about. It seemed to me that you were saying that it was Mate who believed Pundalik to be an historical figure, but your sentence might mean "if we assume that Pundalik was an historical figure". If it's Mate who believed that, it's an easy fix. I can just change the sentence to read "...Mate, who assumed..." Finetooth (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the sentence that starts, "The deity Vitthala was named by the builder king Bittidev..." a bit puzzling. I interpreted it to mean that the king named the deity after himself. This struck me as unusual, and I may be misunderstanding the meaning. Finetooth (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The interpretation "the king named the deity after himself" is right.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sentence in "Iconography" says, "Other images depict the right hand making a blessing-gesture, as traditionally misunderstood". Should the word be "understood" rather than "misunderstood"? Finetooth (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"misunderstood" because a blessing gesture is not present in the central image.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tinkered some more with this sentence. Please check what I've done to make sure it's OK. Finetooth (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an expert on image licenses, but I've been trying to improve my understanding, and I try to check the licenses the way I would for an FAC review. I see possible problems with three of the images in this article. Image:Sant-Tukaram.jpg may be under copyright; it's not clear from the given information that it is not. Image:SantDnyaneshwar.JPG is under copyright; the home page of the source site says this at the bottom of the page. Image:Purandara.jpg does not specify the original author or the original source; thus it's not clear that 70 years plus the life of the author has elapsed. I think what happens sometimes is that people upload images that they have scanned or copied and in good faith list themselves as the author and/or the source and release the material as GFDL or something similar. However, since they don't own the underlying rights, which belong to someone else, they are not in a position to give them away. Finetooth (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dnyaneshwar image is copyrighted, as per website. Removed image. Requested the authors of other 2 images to check license. waiting for their replies. Please check if the new img i uploaded is OK.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is OK. It certainly appears to be in the public domain. Finetooth (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that some of the citations to web pages are missing their access dates. These will have to be added to get through FAC. Since the ones that are done are in ISO format, for example, "Retrieved on 2008-09-15", they should all be done in this format. Finetooth (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Festivals" section, I don't know what "the 11th of bright fortnight in the Hindu month of Ashadha" means. It seems to mean "the 11th day of a well-lit 14 days", but I'm guessing it must have a more specific meaning. Finetooth (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are 12 Hindu Months, each is divided into 2 fortnight: 1. when the moon waxes (day 1 to full moon - 15 Days), which i referred to as the "bright fortnight" and 2. when the moon wanes (day 1 to new moon day), which i refer as the "dark fortnight". Ashadha, Chaitra, Magha, kartik are names of Hindu months used in the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find the phrase "the 11th of bright fortnight" so evocative that even though many readers may not exactly understand it, I didn't want to alter it. My solution was to add a note based on what you told me above. If that seems clumsy, feel free to remove it. Finetooth (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, the article looks good for FAC. I was confident in passing it and I am still confident in the article now. I might have missed something that others will pick up on, but it looks pretty good to me. Gary King (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I noticed that some of the citations have links to the Bibliography section. I haven't seen links used in that way before, and they may raise editorial eyebrows. One of the things that's puzzling is that some author names are linked, and others are not. Some are linked multiple times. Novetske is linked in citation 1 and 15 but not in 52 and later; the linking pattern seems internally inconsistent in other words. The easiest fix might be to unlink them. Readers will understand the connections without the mechanical links. Citation 28 is an odd case with a different problem. I think it probably should be re-cast to look like citation 31. Finetooth (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the loose ends remaining from above, my copyediting here is complete. Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
checked the source and corrected the ref 28 problem. Removed internal links.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

[edit]

There are two grammatical errors in the sentence "There are many temples of Vithoba are in Maharashtra, and while some are in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh." plus it is a bit awkward to read. Not sure how you want to go with this, would sentence wording such as: "Many temples of Vithoba are in Maharashtra; others are in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh." be what you want to say? -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

changed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article switches back and forth several times between using a spaced en dash and unspaced em dash for punctuation, for example in appended for reverence – producing the names "Vitthala" and "Vithoba and around the devotee Pundalik—who is credited with bringing the deity to Pandharpur—and around Vithoba's role. Either, but not both, can be used. -- Michael Devore (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

– used throughout.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, except, all dashes that were replaced did not get a space on either side of them. The article's original en dashes are right (with a space on either side), but the new ones are wrong. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sanskrit "naked" form is spelled three different ways in the article: digambar, digambhar, and digambara. Is that correct? -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four sentences

[edit]

The four sentences you asked about could be rearranged in many different ways. I'll post some possibilities here.

  • "Pundarika asks Krishna for a boon that Krishna stay in that form at the place where the river Bhima flows, making it both a tirtha (holy place near a water body) and a kshetra (holy place where a temple is situated)."
Pundarika asks Krishna to remain in digambar form where the river Bhima flows. He believes that Krishna's presence will make the site a tirtha (holy place near a water body) and a kshetra (holy place with a temple).
  • "When he asked the reason for their appearance, they told Pundalik that Kukkuta served his parents and thus became pious and that by serving the sage they became pure too."
When asked why they had come, they told Pundalik that Kukkuta had become pious by serving his parents. By serving the sage, they had become pious too.
  • "Upon hearing of their plans, Pundalik and his wife joined them on the pilgrimage and forced the parents to walk the whole way and to groom horses while Pundalik and his wife rode on horseback.
Hearing of their plans, Pundalik and his wife joined them on the pilgrimage. While the younger couple rode on horseback, they forced the parents to walk the whole way and to groom the horses.
  • "Pundalik asked a boon that the Lord should stand in that form as Vithoba with Rakhumai (Rukmini) to bless his devotees forever."
Pundalik asked that the Lord, in his Vithoba form, remain on the brick with Rakhumai (Rukmini) and bless his devotees forever. Finetooth (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested improvements

[edit]

I feel there is too much emphasis on the various authors views. For eg. A sentence that is referenced from R. G. Bhandarkar's book need not begin with according to R. G. Bhandarkar etc. etc. everytime it is referenced from his book, unless there is a direct quote from the author...or to avoid weasel words. It mars the readability of the article. --Anish (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "according to Bhandarkar" is used because it is Bhandarkar's theory. There are other theories about origins, which are disputed. You are free to remove the "according to" wherever you free appropriate. I will also look at the article for redundancy. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well...Bhandarkar was just an example....I will try to remove redundancies wherever I notice it.--Anish (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to understand this sentence gramatically - "R.C. Dhere opines that Vithoba worship is more ancient than the worship of Krishna, "Vedic or pre-Vedic", about 6th century BCE". "Vedic or pre-vedic" refers to Krishna or Vithoba. About 6th century is left hanging and confusing. And 6th Century what ? CE or BCE. Even if it is BCE, it can neither be considered as vedic or pre-vedic as vedic period was before 6th century BCE.--Anish (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a kindly expressed comment Anish. I agree the sentence looks wrong, but my main concern is factual historical error. As you say, vedic/pre-vedic refers to a period much earlier than that specified numerically.
We must check sources! :)
PS I hope you are in good health and happy my friend.
Alastair Haines (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alastair my friend.......nice to see you back....and helping others as usual!!!--Anish (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: "R.C. Dhere opines that Vithoba worship is "Vedic or pre-Vedic", about 6th century BCE, thus more ancient than the worship of Krishna." Is this better? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now it makes sense gramatically....but not historically. Vedic period was around 1500-1000 BCE. So 6th Century BCE is not vedic or pre-vedic period but Vedantic or Upanishadic period which was from 800-300 BCE. So I suggest something like.. R.C. Dhere opines that Vithoba worship was prevalent about 6th century BCE, thus more ancient than the worship of Krishna--Anish (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with Anish' suggestion Tiger. Are you also comfortable that Anish' understanding conforms to the generally accepted definition of the Vedic period? If so, we can go forward together on this one I think. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"R.C. Dhere opines that Vithoba worship is "Vedic or pre-Vedic", more ancient than the worship of Krishna." The date is not given in the original reference.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The article is in much better shape now—thanks to Alastair and Tiger. But I have a few more comments to make:

  • First, pundalik section needs a major overhaul. Since he is intricately connected with Vithoba, the section does not explain why he is the central figure. Secondly, it would also add value to the article to explain – Why he is considered a historical figure? Is there an archeological evidence….mention in contemporary texts etc. And why do others dismiss him as a mythical figure? It would make an interesting addition to this section.
  • How about some miracles associated with Vithoba? Redtigerxyz can source them. I found a few here [3] , [4]
    • ….And a new perspective on the miracles and the egalitarian philosophy of Vithoba [5] and [6]
  • In some cases I find there is double punctuation like in the following case apostrophe as well as brackets are used: Varkari Panth ("The Pilgrims' Path") or Varkari sampradaya ("The Pilgrims' tradition") is one of the most important Vaishnava sects in India.--Anish (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent input thank you Anish. I have copyedited the Pundalik subsection to my satisfaction; however, I agree 100% with you regarding content. All we have in that section is the "votes" of academics, not their reasons. It is not possible for a reader to evaluate or compare the scholars. Having said that, the section seemed to me to be very clearly and smoothly written, sticking right on topic and collecting reliable sources from several points of view—that's outstanding quality. It's also great that clear conclusions are made explicit, and that tangents are not multiplied. But, overall, yes, I agree that readers are likely to want to know more about Pundalik, I, for one, certainly do, but it is beyond my brief to actually go collecting that information. If you, Tiger and any others would be so kind as to source more information, I'd be very happy to do my best smoothing anything if necessary.
Regarding the (parentheses) and "quote marks" you've identified, I agree with you. I don't recollect looking at that section or addressing that issue thoroughly yet. It looks a little tricky in that case, because italics may be needed as well. I think I'd rephrase things as follows.
  • The Varkari sampradaya (way of life) or Vakari panth (path) is one of the most important Vaishnava movements in India.
I won't discuss it here and now, but I can see pros and cons regarding use of the word sect. Like the word cult, these are common, neutral, technical academic terms in religious studies, but are negative terms in colloquial English. An encyclopedia mediates between academic sources and educated readers, showing discretion with regard to technical terms. I may be doing the article a service to translate the academic–religious-studies English usage into something less potentially misleading to a lay reader. But at this stage, I'll retain cult and sect where used, until we have time to share opinions among editors.
I've just discovered I will have the next week clear to achieve three things, two long overdue, this is good news for my work here. I expect to have an early night tonight, but by this time tomorrow I should have copyedited Origins and development, and hopefully Worship the next day. Again, my apologies for being slow (and getting side-tracked here at Wiki a couple of times). Alastair Haines (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Alastair, as you rightly pointed out, the flow of the pundalik section is smooth as far as the copy-edit issue is concerned. Infact the whole article is now smoother and clearer and not simply a collection of academics view. In most cases the reasosn have been specified as to why so-and-so scholar belives so-and-so. But in some cases the reasons are missing so adding it would add more value and clarity. Don't apologise ....... you have already some quite a good work and I can already see the hallmarks of FA article with a few fine tuning.--Anish (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm seeing the quality of the sources and material, I get that FA feeling too. There's quality all over the place, and the written composition was very good before I arrived, in my opinion, anyway. I actually admire the style of things I change for fine-tuning reasons. See you tomorrow. Best regards Alastair Haines (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cult v/s sect is an eternal battle. The word cult as Cult (religious practice) is accepted, though has negative connotations. I am open to own decision reached here.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though Pundalik is a major figure in Vithoba tradition, he is NOT the subject of this article. Thus why he is a historical or not, may be an WP:UNDUE. I have written the Pundalik section trying to convey 1. Pundalik may be historical and founder of Varkari faith 2. He may be Kannada, Jain or Buddhist reflecting the effect on the Kannada, Jain and Buddhist connections of Vithoba, and 3. why he is a central figure in Vithoba faith. A Pundalik article may be needed. I have used a secondary source (Sand "The Legend of Pundarika: The Founder of Pandharpur", partly visible on google books, you need a hard copy if any one wants to read complete article) for the views, sadly it does not explain the reasons. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alastair Haines and Anish, i want to thank you both for your time, work and dedication to the article, without which it could not have had a smoother text flow. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miracles: Some of them are covered in Legend last para. There are numerous others mentioned in Mahipati's works, all of which can't be covered here. I have added a note "For the complete English translation of Bhaktavijaya, which narrates the legend of Pundalik and also tells stories of reported interactions between the saints and Vithoba, see Stories of Indian Saints (1988) by Mahīpati, Justin Edwards Abbott, and Narhar R. Godbole." --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those seem like good answers to me, Tiger. How much material on Pundalik and miracles, and how much scholastic reasoning is appropriate is not an exact kind of question to answer. I think both you and Anish put good cases for each of the two sides.
I think a Pundalik article sounds like a good idea, though there will probably be friendly questioning about merging it here proposed at some time or another. The main thing is sourcing Pundalik information. This article alone shows how very notable he is, historical figure or not. You have already given an outstanding bibliography regarding him too, Tiger.
Anyway, these are not copy-edit issues, so I'll leave it alone. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Could someone please explain the following sentence for me.

"This also led to conversion of the Shaiva Pundarika shrine to the shrine of the devotee Pundalik, who brought Vithoba to Pandharpur."

Is this part of Dhere's theory? (In which case we can note that in line.) How do the preceding parts of the theory "lead" to this conclusion? Does Dhere believe Pundalik brought Vithoba to Pandharpur, or that Vithoba is "Vedic or pre-Vedic"? Is he suggesting Pundalik is Vedic or earlier?

I simply can't follow the logic. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"R.C. Dhere opines that Vithoba worship may be even older—"Vedic or pre-Vedic"; hence predating the worship of Krishna.[14] According to this theory, Vithoba is an amalgam of various local heroes, who gave their lives to save their cattle, and was worshipped first as a Dhangar (a shepherd, cowherd community) deity. The rise of the Yadava dynasty, which had cowherd ancestry, could have led to the glorification of Vithoba as Krishna, who is often depicted as a cowherd. This also led to conversion of the Shaiva Pundarika shrine to the shrine of the devotee Pundalik, who brought Vithoba to Pandharpur. Vithoba is also assimilated in Buddhism as a form of Buddha, who in turn in Hinduism is viewed as a form of Vishnu." This para is entirely a summary of Dhere's theory.

Dhere says: Vithoba is Vedic or pre-Vedic --> an amalgam of local heroes --> Dhangar (cowherd) deity ---> Rise of Yadava (cowherd) dynasty --> identification with Vishnu-Krishna and at the same time, conversion of Shaiva shrines (Pundarika's) to Vaishnava ones (the legendary Pundalik's) --> Buddhism. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that concise summary. Glad the ideas are sourced, I'll repeat the cites in line. I will think more about how the logic flows. I'm sure it does if Dhere says so, but we have to make that clear for a reader. This reader (namely me) can't work it out from what we currently have in the article, so some clarification is needed. I think your word "legendary" is helpful clarification. Dhere does not believe Pundalik brought Vithoba to Pandharpur, he is quoting the legend as part of his theory of the "vaishnavisation" of Pandharpur. Under Dhere's hypothesis, a Pundalik legend was created as a revisionist history both to further harmonise Vithoba worship with Vaishnavism and to "capture" a Shiva shrine for Vishnu. It's a very interesting theory. I just want to be sure it's what Dhere actually proposed. I like the idea of a Vithoba more ancient than the Vedas, but clearly it comes at the cost of dismissing even more of Pundalik as legendary. I've found reliable sources citing Dhere, and Dhere himself, online. So I'll check things out and clarify as best I can. Feel free to comment on any changes, of course. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The interpretation is completely right, Alastair Haines. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tiger, you know the source better than I, so I needed to check.
I have since found this interesting comment in another source.
"What interested Dhere most was his very radical theory that Pundarika was originally a manifestation of Siva which, according to Dhere, somehow was changed into a Vaisnava figure during the period of the Vaisnavization of the different cults of Pandharpur." — Erik Reenberg Sand, "The Legend of Pundarika", in Hans Bakker (ed.), The History of Sacred Places in India as Reflected in Traditional Literature, (Leiden: Brill, 1990), p. 40. Emphasis added.
Adding. Reword if not clear --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

poet-saint or saint-poet?

[edit]

There are preferences in English and academic usage regarding compound designations like saint-poet or poet-saint. More familiar examples to the average reader would be soldier-poet prefered to poet-soldier and prince-bishop prefered to bishop-prince. Comparisons at Google scholar gave the following:

To my ears, poet-saint sounds clearer in intent than saint-poet, since it underscores that they are being cited as religious authorities, not literary ones. This is because English typically prefers descriptive elements to precede their head, just as with ordinary use of adjectives—e.g. "white god".

The first issue is whether the compound intends to be descriptive (karmadharaya) or co-ordinating (dvandva). In other words, are we talking about saints who happened to be poets, poets who happened to be saints or people who were both poets and saints, with no particular emphasis on either. Although the last may be the intent, English prefers use of an explicit conjunction in such cases—the poet and saint or the saint and poet. If a conjunction is used, any emphasis is typically on the first element. If a compound is used, the emphasis is on the second element.

An analogy exists in scholarship regarding the Hebrew Bible, where we find discussion of "writing prophets" (Isaiah, Jeremiah et al.). Were we to use a compound for them, they would be writer-prophets rather than prophet-writers, because they are notable for being prophets, not for being writers, the only writing we have from them is their prophetic writing.

As it stands, our article is currently inconsistent. We have "saint-poet Tukaram" and "author-saint Hemachandra" in consecutive paragraphs. What is significant to our readers is not whether Tukaram and Hemachandra are known as quality exponents of particular literary genres, but that they are widely acknowledged as authorities within their religious tradition, as indicated by the ascription of saint. This would be different in an article on Indian poetry, even Indian religious poetry for example, where we could say "poet (and saint) Tukaram" or "saint-poet Tukaram". Here, though, "poet-saint Tukaram" and "author-saint Hemachandra" stress that they are acknowledged authorities for their own tradition, who happen to be a poet and an author in addition to being saints, hence reliable sources for our article.

In any case, consistency suggests we need to alter one or other of the ascriptions. I'll run with placing saint after the hyphen, in order to stress sainthood over other descriptions—we are dealing with nominative tatpurusa here. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "saint-poet" was used as a literal translation of the Marathi "sant-kavi", also in Varkari or Marathi culture, Tukaram or Dnyaneshwar being a sant or saint is more important than just being a poet. I request Alastair Haines to decide and implement the same throughout, both "saint-poet" and "poet-saint" are used by reliable sources used in the article. [7] [8] --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I request Alastair Haines to comment which word, he is going to use. So i can atleast stick to the word, if i am editing. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your open-ness and your information. I suspected "saint-poet" reflected a non-English background. In particular that it might reflect an Indian language.
With your agreement, my friend, please trust me (and some of the information linked above), that English forms compounds differently to Marathi.
What matters most is that we translate the emphasis, not the word-order. As I'm sure you know very well indeed, when you translate into and out of English, you often change word order because English is so fussy about it.
This is a very minor point, but you have given me a lot of confidence by teaching me that Marathi sant-kavi (saint-poet) suggests emphasis on the first element, you think of it as dvandva don't you? Just like I thought.
That means the best English for it is either "poet-saint" or "saint and poet". For style reasons I recommend we go for the compound.
I am very impressed by your willingness to interact on this point, because you have primary source backing for your term. I hope I've indicated enough above to give you confidence that "poet-saint" really will sound easier to an English reader.
Please confirm for me Tiger that you are happy that we adopt poet-saint for this article. If you're not happy, I will do it the other way around out of respect for the Marathi and for you. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dash usage

[edit]

Dash usage has become rather messy in the article again. It looks like the original spaced en dashes—an acceptable alternative to unspaced em dashes per MOS:DASH— are migrating to the MoS first choice of unspaced em dashes, which is fine as long as consistency is maintained. However, I notice the article now has unspaced em dashes, spaced en dashes, spaced em dashes, spaced hyphens, and an em dash that is spaced on one side and not the other, all for interrupting punctuation. If a final decision could be reached here on whether to go with either spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes for the punctuation throughout the article, these mistakes and inconsistencies could be cleaned up in quick order. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also observed the very things you mention. I am currently in the process of copyediting the whole article, which naturally includes consistency. I have selected the unspaced m-dash convention, since I observed the inconsistency you've also noted, and I'm adjusting all punctuation anyway. I simply have the habit of using m-dashes. Typeface and quote mark conventions are more significant in this article, since there is considerable transliteration and translation required in communicating core information.
In absolutely everything a copyeditor does, there is room for alternatives. I completely agree that there is no need to fix things that aren't broken, but when a request is made for stylistic improvement, someone has to do it, and you get stuck with some of the stylistic tastes of the volunteer. I'm quite happy for someone else to be that volunteer, someone who has time to complete the task quickly. But unless that occurs soon, you're stuck with me working in fits and starts as relaxation between other projects.
I feel no need to make apologies for any apparant tardiness in my work here. I'm actually interested in the subject matter, and fact checking is part of what I'm doing, it often is with copyedit work. That takes time. Additionally, I've found all the text I've worked with extremely well written, the main need imo is streamlining things a little for readers unfamiliar with the topic area. This too requires I consult some of the sources to be sure emphasis and other subtleties here are in line with what is documented elsewhere.
As I mentioned above, consistency in typeface for transliteration etc. is more complex, and important for legibility I would think; and I intend to document the system I've adopted here on completion of the work. Regarding dashes, feel free to change all closed m-dashes to spaced n-dashes at any point after I've finished. I've little concern regarding that in the long term, but while I'm working, I simply find m-dashes easier to read.
I hope that answers your concern regarding consistency, and gives you realistic expectations regarding time-frame. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have always been confused by the dashes, and thus request Alastair Haines, who copyediting currently, to decide and implement a consistent policy. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tiger. I'll run with closed m-dashes. I should be finished in a few days. People are most welcome to change the dash convention afterwards, I certainly won't feel hurt. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no expectations of a time-frame, but was pointing out a problem with the article in its current incarnation. Nothing beyond this notice need or should be interpreted to include a motive or stylistic judgement. Whatever the final decision, I am certain it will be suitable for the purposes of the article. -- Michael Devore (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! :)
I made a curious error calling Krishna a shepherd rather than cowherd. In between editing here I'm currently writing a commentary on ancient near eastern love poetry that features shepherds. Looks like I need to be careful I don't get my pastoral deities confused! :(
They are interesting examples of compound nouns in English, though, bearing in mind my previous comments above. A cow-herd or sheep-herd is not a type of herd! ;) They are classic examples of "exocentric" or bahuvrihi compounds. I think it's marvellous that Panini helped English linguists understand their own language, although English didn't exist in its modern form until almost 2,000 years later!
It's bed-time for me here in Australia, I'll be back to work tomorrow. Cheers all. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I've tidied up most of the references, but I've missed a few and it's worth documenting the format and issues so that others can help or follow the pattern if adding to the article later.

Reference format has the following syntax:

  • Doe (2008) pp. 152–58

The issues are:

  • there should be spaces between each element—name, date, page abbreviation and page range;
  • the page abbreviation should be "p." for a single page, "pp." for multiple pages;
  • consecutive pages should be connected by a closed n-dash, distinct pages offset by commas (followed by spaces); and,
  • closing numbers of ranges should be a minimum of two digits, unless the range terminates on page 9 or earlier.

Additionally, where a reference is used more than once it should be named, so that any alterations can be made at one location (the first occurance). A good convention for naming references is to use the authors surname with the first page number appended without any spacing.

Finally, in certain places, it is adequate to specify a range with the abbreviation "f." for 'following page' or "ff." for 'following pages'. This is particularly convenient for naming references, hence the made-up reference above could be named "Doe152ff".

Obviously, in some cases multiple works by one author may be cited with different publication dates, yet identical page numbers in those works. However, authors also often have multiple works in the same year. Some common sense in naming can be used to assist future editors working on the same article.

I'll leave reference clean-up for now, and focus back on the text. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues

[edit]

dashes

[edit]

I think I've caught all dash/hyphen issues.

  • Punctuation dashing is now exclusively represented by the long, closed m-dash (—).
  • The short, closed n-dash (–) is now strictly a symbol, indicating disjunctions of beginnings and endings of ranges (numbers or months).
  • Hyphens (-) are now strictly orthographical or diacritical—characters used either to connect words, or to indicate a pre- fix or suf -fix.

There are complex possible uses of n-dash and m-dash, but none of them apply to the current text, so we can (thankfully) not worry about them.

dates

[edit]

There is a little inconsistency with reference to centuries. The most common form I've seen at Wiki (and in this article) has the following syntax:

  • 12th century.

Hence, I'm adjusting things like: twelfth century, 8th-century, 18th Century and so on.

There is also a little inconsistency in BC/BCE and AD/CE. In a Hindu article BCE/CE is appropriate, so I'll adjust accordingly. Late dates, like 1825, generally need no clarification. Early dates, like 2nd century, are often helped by making their "direction" explicit, at least when establishing a context. If repeated regularly after that they can "feel" cumbersome, unless "direction" changes regularly in the material being considered.

I'm noting these things here, so that others can join in (and correct things I overlook). I don't imagine there's much controversy over the conventions I've mentioned, I bring them up only to clarify that this is standard stuff, and so give people confidence to participate (especially when I am being slow).

other

[edit]

I am developing patterns for dealing with foreign language terms in this article. This is probably the most important and potentially controversial aspect of articles like this one. Personally, I like learning vocabulary (or using what I've learned) in languages other than English. This is not true of most readers, who want to know the history of Vithoba, and current practices, without being swamped with Sanskrit and Marathi. In some cases, ekadashi for example (simply a dvandva compound of eka—'one'—and dashi—'ten'), we could simply use an English translation—eleven, Eleven, 11th, etc.—however, the eleventh of the lunar month is such a distinctive of Vakari tradition, and so frequently refered to, that "adopting" the word into the "vocabulary" of our own article makes a great deal of sense to me. Other words, like palkhi (palanquin), are sufficiently technical that these too should come transliterated rather than translated into our article. I am much less clear that the Marathi word for 'sandles' aids the reader in any clear fashion. At this point, I am not removing any Sanskrit or Marathi vocab from the article, I am simply doing my best to make it as unobtrusive as possible, but there's a limit to that. Italics do, however, help signal to a reader that they are not expected to know a word, and that its definition can be expected to be added in parentheses, or that it has already been so introduced earlier in the text. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I selected 'palanquin' to translate palkhi, because the English palanquin is actually derived from the Sanskrit palyanka via Malay and Portuguese. And I suspect palkhi comes from the same word via Prakrit into Marathi. In other words, palkhi and palanquin are actually kind of the same word. English and Marathi are cousins. The world is a small place. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ekadashi as a word does not only deal with Varkari usage, it is used in every Hindu calendar, and almanac indicating the eleventh day of the lunar month. Also, the word "palkhi" has more shades to it as just being a palanquin (a loose English translation). Palkhis are associated with temple-festivals, when the deity is moved in a palkhi around the temple, in the village, or to another town. Many temples in Maharashtra (can't speak in general about India and Nepal - though atleast some temples in these countries have palkhis) have palkhi-festivals. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes, that is helpful. I think palkhi must be the word we use throughout the article, because it has no exact English equivalent. The same reason we use the Marathi word rather than the English explains why our simple translation is only that--a simple translation, not a perfect one. The article already cites an English language academic paper that uses palkhi in its title, that should be sufficient evidence that the best treatment is to "borrow" the word into English rather than to translate it in this article.
Regarding ekadashi, yes, although not specific to Vakari, it is yet another example of a word with associations in Indian religions that the number eleven, or even the eleventh of the month simply do not have in English. Again, we are right not to translate it, but to teach the reader what it means so it can be understood as it is used.
As I mentioned, I'm retaining all other Marathi and Sanskrit terms, though I'm noting that I think it would be a fair criticism from someone at FAC to ask that these be kept to what is very closely associated with Vithoba and genuinely necessary. It is an English language article after all, on a religious topic, rather than a lesson in Sanskrit. ;) But remember, this objection is not my objection. I think things are fine, but tastes differ, and there could be a good case made to ask us to be more selective. Let's wait and see.
In any case, I'll be back to work again soon. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rakhumai or Rukmini?

[edit]

I take it that Rukhumai is the natural Marathi form of the name Rukmini. I think this article should select Marathi forms over Sanskrit, Kannada and Hindi terms, consistent with selecting Vithoba over Vittala. The language of Vithoba devotion is Marathi (and Kannada). This is slightly awkward in English, because English has assimilated a good deal of Sanskrit and Hindi in various ways. However, most English readers will find all terms unfamiliar. After presenting variants at first mention, we should then stick to only one option (the Marathi) from then onwards.

Rukhumai is an excellent example of the difficulty. Many English speakers will recognise Rukmini, however, many won't. At Wiki, of course, there is only one article title and Rukmini is the right choice (imo). However, in this article, after identifying that Rukhumai is Rukmini, I think we should be consistent in calling her Rukhumai without offering the explanation at each usage.

I'm somewhat open on this issue. However, the following seem to be the issues.

  • Do we give alternatives at each reference? E.g. Rukhumai/Rukmini. I think not.
  • Do we use the name most familiar in English? I think not, since this is simply undefined in many cases.
  • Do we adopt one convention for Vithoba and Rukhumai and another for other names and words? Again I think not.

I can easily imagine readers criticising use of Rukhumai as making things more complicated, so editors will do this too. (In fact, part of me has precisely this objection.) However, there are reasons for doing it—authenticity (to the culture being discussed) and consistency (across other words and names which are equally opaque to the English reader). These matters will not always occur to critical readers and are somewhat convoluted to explain in detail.

The question is, do we copyedit in such a way as to conceed in advance to criticisms we can be sure will be raised? I.e. select Rukmini, because that will deflect criticism in future. Or are we willing to document sound reasons for adopting Rukhumai in this article and direct critics to engage with them before voicing any final opinion of their own?

I propose the second. But that may mean refering a critic at an FAC to discussion here, rather than simply accepting the criticism. That takes courage when you want every vote you can get. This is your FAC bid Tiger. It's your risk to take, not mine. I'll back you whichever way you leap. Other people's opinions on this would also be helpful. Reasoning is usually taken more seriously when several people are presenting the same rationale.

I've currently decided to go for Rukhumai, though in previous edits I used Rukmini. I can see both sides, I've even changed my mind, but this article needs to make up its own mind on this one. Please help us decide the issue Tiger, my friend. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When texts speak of Vithoba, they use Rakhumai reflecting the Varkari's non-Brahmanical Marathi tradition. When texts talk of Vithoba as Krishna, they use Rukmini - may be reflecting a Sanskrit Brahmanical tradition. So to be accurate with the texts, two names are used. Similarly in Haridasa sect section, Vitthala is used instead of Vithoba as Vitthala is word used in Kannada. Also in the temples section. Before shifting to the other spelling, i add "Vitthala (Vithoba)". --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you were doing in the Consorts section and I liked it very much. Perfect! :)
The way the text flowed there, there was some changing backwards and forward that is hard to explain in a general and simple way, but I agree it was exactly the responsible academic and neutral way to do it.
So, without making any clear rule about it here, I'll press on, I'm sure we'll agree and that we can work together to explain it to others should it not be obvious why things are the way they are. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issues

[edit]

Since Redtigerxyz asked me to point out article issues I might see, here are a few small problems I noticed on a quick read-through. I was time-limited and didn't go into a detailed study of the text, so this isn't meant to be a complete or comprehensive critique, but the article has clearly improved due to recent editing sessions.

  • Re: "Haridasas consider the temple of Pandharpur sacred as well that of Hampi and worship Vitthala along with forms of Krishna." Bad grammar, possibly due to a missing "as" after "as well". If that is the case, a comma or two would be a good adddition to the clause, or perhaps a minor reword to avoid the need. -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: "Another name Pandharinath also refers to Vithoba as the lord of Pandhari (yet another variant for Pandharpur)". There seems to be a word missing here, but I can't quite figure out the desired meaning to place it. Does "Pandharinath" refer to Vithoba?
  • Re: "Eventually, on meeting sage Kukkuta, Pundalik underwent a transformation and devoted his life to the service of his aged parents." Which of the two caused the transformation, did it happen eventually or did it happen on meeting the sage? If the meeting caused the transformation, I'd consider changing "Eventually" to wording such as "Later" or "Later in his life" or dropping it altogether. If the transformation was eventual after meeting the sage, then a slightly different wording choice would be better.
  • Re: "The king ordered Sena to be arrested for not coming to the palace despite royal orders." What king? The transition here is pretty abrupt. Consider something along the lines of "The king of [whatever] had ordered...". The "had" relates back to the need for aid in the previous sentence as a cause.
  • Re: "Apart from these and abhangas, short Marathi devotional poems of the Varkaris, many stutis (praises) and stotras (hymns) are dedicated to Vithoba, some of them originate from the Haridasa tradition." I like "originating from" better than "originate from", otherwise it reads like it should be a separate sentence.

OK, I'm out of time for now. As you can see, nothing major, and it's your decision what changes to make and if you want to make them. If a larger chunk of free time becomes available, I'll try to fit in a more detailed scan after other copyediting passes are complete. -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this attention and help, and thanks in advance for coming back when you have time. Two of your comments above relate to sentences I've scrutinised (or altered). The others refer to parts I've not come to yet, so thanks for the advanced tip-offs.
I'm quite happy for the sentences I've "passed" to be changed, of course, but here they are again, and my take on just those two sentences.
  • "Another name, Pandharinath, also refers to Vithoba, as the lord of Pandhari (yet another variant for Pandharpur)".
I've adjusted punctuation. Pandhari is the third alternative name for Pandharpur mentioned in the text. Pandhari-nath means "of Pandhari-Lord" and is used to refer to Vithoba. That -nath means 'Lord' has been explained in the text previously.
I've probably spoiled things now. Once you see it, you see it. The text will probably always make sense. Text is always easier once deciphered, the trick is going back to see what made it difficult to decipher in the first place. Then adjusting things to remove any obstacles. Sometimes, tiredness and unfamiliar words are the obstacle rather than the actual text.
Anyway, I'll adjust the punctuation in the article to make the apposition explicit. Feel free to change the whole sentence or turn it into three sentences. Concise writing is often harder to read.
  • "Eventually, on meeting sage Kukkuta, Pundalik underwent a transformation and devoted his life to the service of his aged parents."
Your questions here Michael mirror many of my own. I'd like to know more of the story, but I'm content with the precis as far as the article goes. The "eventually" could refer to five pages of poetic description of heroic narrative. Whenever, however, and whoever was responsible, the transformation happened, the "narrative conflict" between Pundalik and Vithoba is resolved and Kukkuta provides minimalist explanation. I liked the sentence as very compressed precis storytelling. It does leave answerable questions. Eventually is rich with unexplored implications. Again, please feel free to expand this section, Tiger's very generous with sourcing and expanding. My vote's happy with short and sweet in this case. But please feel free to ignore that, because I'm not a voting kind of man. ;)
So, bottom line, your move, please edit those two sentences (and any others I've finished with) to your satisfaction. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary

[edit]

In the lists (Names and Words) below, the names are categorised by what they denote (to aid seeing relationships), the words are simply offered in alphabetical order.

Names

[edit]

"Maharashtra is a state in the modern nation of India. Its capital is Mumbai, the 5th most populous city in the world. Historically, it was at the centre of the famous Maratha Empire. The most popular local language is Marathi."

"Vishnu is a major Hindu god, often considered as the Preserver, alongside Brahma (Creator) and Shiva (Destroyer). In Vaishnavism, Vishnu is considered supreme. His consort is Lakshmi. He is famous for ten avatars (appearances) including Krishna and the Buddha in the past, and Kalki who is still to come."

compounds

[edit]

Words

[edit]

The main issues here are typography and definition. Regarding typography, words may be written in any one (but not more) of the following ways:

  • in scripts prefered by the native languages (and should not be bold or italic as well);
  • in IAST (again, with rare exceptions, these need no further marking);
  • in italics (when the two methods above are not used, care needs to be taken that such versions of words are found in sources); or,
  • as ordinary English words, because they have been accepted into English dictionaries (care needs to be taken in case English meaning varies from native language meaning, italics signal such shifts).

accepted in English (loanwords)

[edit]
  • avatar (manifestation) — literally a descent, but generally restricted to divine reference, especially Vishnu (italics may sometimes be appropriate to indicate native language usage of the word)

"A Brahmin is a priest. It is also the name of the highest, priestly caste in the traditional Hindu social system, which includes: Kshatriya (rulers), Vaishya (specialists) and Shudra (workers)."

  • Brahmin (priest) — also highest caste, well-known loanword in English (can take plurals, possessives, form adjectives), doesn't require italics as foreign language term (Oxford English Dictionary 1st ed., 1888, notes capital had generally been prefered to that point)
  • brahminical
  • dhoti — traditional Indian lower-body garment for men, similar to a sarong
  • guru (teacher)
  • raja (king) — cognate to Latin rex, whence "regulation" (from ruler to the rules); see PIE "reg-" in Pokorny (1989) pp. 854–57
  • veena — stringed instrument, developed in India, of lute family, resembling a long guitar, compare with sitar

non-English

[edit]
  • abhanga (untranslatable) — religious poems of genre unique to Vithoba
  • amrita (food of the gods) — compare with "ambrosia" and "nectar" (now English from Greek)
  • arati (untranslatable) — ritual offering (of light), and songs sung at this
  • bhakti (devotion) — religious devotion, restricted in usage to Vaishnavism (and related yoga school)
  • darshan (untranslatable) — visual reverence, extending from supernatural "visions" to an "audience" with a god in his temple.
  • dasa (servant)
  • dharma (untranslatable) — underlying moral fabric of universe, religious movement or person

"An ekadashi is the 11th day of either fortnight in the cycle of the moon. The moon waxes (grows) to full brightness, then wanes (shrinks) to darkness and a 'new' moon and cycle."

  • ekadashi (11) = eka (1) + dashi (10) see also holy days (above)
  • kshetra (untranslatable) — holy place of spiritual power (contrast with tirtha below)
  • kuldevta (household deity)
  • mandir (temple)
  • murti (untranslatable) — image and hosting shrine
  • palkhi (untranslatable) — ceremonial vehicle carried in pilgrimage and religious procession, containing deities or sandles of saints, cognate to "palanquin"
  • panth (path) — used metaphorically, as in English, for religious "way" of life (from Sanskrit 'to go' or 'move' Monier Williams (2006): p. 585.; see also PIE "pent-" in Pokorny (1989) pp. 808–09 for English cognates "path", "find" and "Pontiff"; note also Wiktionary PIE roots)
Glossary
abhanga a religious poem dedicated to Vithoba
bhakti religious devotion (especially to Vishnu)
Brahmin a priest; or the name of the whole priestly caste
ekadashi the number 11; or the 11th day of lunar fortnights
palkhi a ceremonial platform for religious objects,
carried by walking devotees
Pandharpur Indian city in state of Maharashtra,
home to main temple of Vithoba
Pundalik possibly legendary founder of Vithoba devotion
puja a religious ritual
vakari a pilgrim; or Vakari, Marathi-speaking Vithoba devotees
yatra a pilgrimage or procession
[edit]
  • puja (untranslatable) — symbolic meal or other communion with deity, implying both intimacy and respect
  • samadhi (memorial) — two technical uses of the word: in this article, funerary "memorial"; more commonly, "mental connection" in meditation
  • sampradaya (untranslatable) — famous and established religious tradition
  • samsara (untranslatable) — the ordinary "course" of life, often a technical word analagous to dunya in Qur'anic Arabic, but with Hindu or Buddhist associations like karma
  • svarup (untranslatable) — authentic, original form of self (contrast with "avatar" in English loanwords above)
  • tirtha (untranslatable) — holy place involving water (contrast with kshetra above)
  • vakari (pilgrim) also Vakari (above)
  • yatra (annual pilgrimage)
Initially created by User:Alastair Haines. Changed a little. Perfect. Any special reason why this has been made? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be helpful for various people, ourselves included. Readers will only know three or four of these words. It is good for us to realise how many words readers will be learning while reading the article. Also, it helps point out that some words are long, but denote very simple ideas--Maharastra, it is just the name of a state of the nation of India--but other words are genuinely essential to the article, very short, but still they are labels for ideas that non-Indians will not recognise--like puja. Finally, it helps make clear why some words have capitals, others don't, some have italics, others don't and so on. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One way to use this list
It would be a new thing (I think) for us to do this. You could select say 10 or 12 frequently used words from the lists above and source a concise explanation. This could become a Template to be included near the top of the article, and called Glossary. It would make life a lot easier for an English-only reader.
The difficulty readers will always face is that there are two, non-ideal options:
  1. foreign words and ideas are explained at every use (this appears redundant and cumbersome—and it is);
  2. they are explained at first use only (this requires memorisation, first use is often hard to find again).

"An abhanga is a poem dedicated to Vithoba and written in the Marathi language. Many abhangas have been written by Vakari poet-saints, ever since Dnyaneshwar who lived in the 13th century."

If words that are frequently repeated are listed in a place that is easy to find (a glossary) readers are much happier. Things look more professional, just like an ordinary book that deals with many foreign words or ideas.
The trick is to make the glossary short, easy to find, and presented in alphabetical or logical order.
I think words like abhanga and ekadashi need "sidebars" if we don't have a glossary. This helps a reader stay on the same page, without needing to go back and find links or explanations. It's the sort of thing that deflects valid criticisms of "redundancy", without creating more valid criticisms of "lack of clarity".
When Tiger gets back from his break, I'd love to hear what he thinks about producing a short glossary, sidebars or both.
Alastair Haines (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badva and Bhat

[edit]
  • "Every pilgrim must employ a Kshetra-upadhya or local priest either a Badva or a Bhat." — Arunchandra S. Pathak (ed.), "Prandharpur", The Gazetteer's Deparment, Maharashtra Government, Mumbai, 2006.

Unfortunately, this excellent source doesn't tell us anything more about the Bhat. On the other hand, unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't tell us anything about the Badva. It appears that local Prandharpur priests who serve vakari consist of family groups who don't always get on well, or at least some weren't in 1977, when the original material was compiled.

The pilgrim who has performed all or any of the above ceremonies seldom fails to worship the god Vithoba and the goddess Rakhumai. The worship is of two kinds: the mahapuja, that is, the great worship also called panchamritpuja or five-nectar worship and the padyapuja or foot-wash worship. During the last few years owing to disputes between the Badvas and the Sevadharis or inferior attendants of the god, the great worship has been stopped. (Ibid.)

I'd like to know more about the Sevadhari too. These are not FAC issues, they are matters of detail that can be addressed over time, not necessarily by current editors. In fact, one of the great strengths of the current article is the way it stays very close to addressing the most important information regarding Vithoba from the very best sources. But this doesn't mean all contribution at the article will cease after we succeed in drawing more attention to it by featuring it, quite the opposite, in fact. We may well attract even more quality contributions. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhat in Marathi is a type of Brahmin. Badvas are traditionally priests of Vithoba's image of Pandharpur. Utpats are traditionally associated with Rakhumai worship. Similar there are Sevadharis and other kinds of priests who perform special tasks like showing a mirror to the deity to playing music for him. This IMO should be covered in Vithoba temple, Pandharpur not here as the article deals with the deity not the temple in particular. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering my questions. That's very helpful and I see your point that details of temple worship and priestly roles belong at the temple article. That doesn't stop some information being here as well, of course. But clearly, just as you say, talking about Bhat goes into unwanted detail. I did find a source that seems to talk about Badva — Lok Nath Soni, "Badwa", in Kumar Suresh Singh, B. K. Lavania, S. K. Mandal, N. N. Vyas, People of India: Rajasthan, Popular Prakashan, 1998. ISBN 9788171547661
Are Vitobha's Badhva part of the same group as Lok Nath Soni's "Badwa"? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Badvas have nothing to do with Rajasthan. Atmost, Badva is spelt as Badava. Badvas are mostly attached to the Pandharpur temple only, not a caste but a family and only afflicted to Vithoba worship and with the Utpats form the adminstaration of the temple, as per my knowledge. I will cover the adminstration in the temple article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good man! Thank you so much. Totally right, this is temple information not Vithoba information. But you understand my questions are natural from a reader, we need the info somewhere. You can see how your work makes a difference, can't you? There are many people like me who want to know more about India if it is made easy for us. We need generous people like you to show us where to look and make it simple for us. Thanks again. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plurals in English

[edit]

The plural form of nouns in English normally involves some version of suffixing s. However, there are exceptions: foot and feet; child and children; man and men; fish and fish and so on. This becomes much more tricky when words are "new" to English, borrowed from other languages (origami and origami, samurai and samurai), or have a long tradition of being formed according to their original language—antenna, antennae; criterion, criteria; datum, data; addendum, addenda. There are inconsistencies when refering to people groups, especially if by autonym—Pakistani, Pakistanis; Israeli, Israelis; but Maori, Maori (in formal language).

I think I should consult Hobson Jobson to get a feel for how English borrows Indian words. I don't think we can assume that we can just add an s to a non-English word to make it plural. That is certainly often not what it would do in its own language, and it is not what English requires in all cases, in fact English is quite comfortable with mass nouns and endings other than s when it is dealing with a non-native term.

So, for example, while there's no problem at all with saying "Vakaris" if one wants to, in formal written English, "Vakari" feels preferable to me as a plural. In many cases we can also easily phrase things to avoid plurals and avoid the issue. But I'll look into Hobson Jobson, because really those of us working on Indology pages should bring our practice into line with reliable style guides on this point. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well, there's way too much information for me to make much of it. I need a secondary source. An interesting example of an Indian word that is very widely used in English without a plural is shampoo, apparently from a rather specific word champu, refering to massaging the scalp with oil before a bath. The original word could obviously form plurals, though shampoo is a mass noun in normal English usage, unless I guess you're selecting between brands at a supermarket. For now, I'll take the safe course of casting sentences so that the sense of foreign words would be expected to be singular. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relaible source, used in this article as a ref uses Varkaris [9].--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. That will do for Vakari/Vakaris then. I think it may come down to my own English and inter-language style. I actually regret raising this now, because when I think about it, I'd want to encourage you to write anything you feel comfortable with. If someone who speaks Marathi is comfortable giving words an English inflection, that's a very good guide to it being OK. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For plurals and capitalisation of first of other indic words, i have google book searched for reliable sources and changed in the article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've seen the changes you've made and I can live with those. Three things should be said though.
  1. Standards: on some points, what is seen in one source can be done differently in others, or in other places of the same work, because the conventional rules are a bit tricky, or involve personal taste. Additionally, a nineteenth century source, or even a 1980s source is often following different conventions to what is now current. However, where things are taste, we're better off following your taste, because you're the writer here.
  2. Capitals: "braminic" and "puranic" are likely to be the normal and appropriate form because of modern English conventions related to adjectives: "ancient Egypt" not "Ancient Egypt", "biblical writers" not "Biblical writers", "rabbinic interpretation" not "Rabbinic interpretation" and so on. An important reason to keep capitals to a minimum is seen in the glossary above, a capital normally signals a proper noun, and proper nouns are conceptually simple, they are just labels for particular people or things, so they signal to readers that they don't need much "brain-space". The clearer we make the context so they can guess "name of river", "name of person", "name of month" the better.
  3. Foreign words: the major issue here is that at first usage of a foreign term, say kris (Javanese dagger), an English reader doesn't know if the s is from the original language or a plural. In many books (though not journal articles) glossaries are provided, which make the base forms of words absolutely clear. Journal articles don't do this, because they are normally written for academic, not general reception. Wiki is more like a book than a journal article, but without the glossary.
The thing is, you and I and many others know what a gopi is, that Radha is a gopi, and that the gopis related to Krishna are frequently referred to in the plural. So we (like many writers) can use whatever feels comfortable. However, when writing for general readership like Wiki, we cannot assume shared background knowledge, and this constrains the freedom we would otherwise have. In this case, because we offer a translation into the plural, it need not be a problem.
Some English users are so familiar with the kris (above) that they speak of it as Javanese and neighbouring peoples do, using just this one word. However, when speaking to other English speakers, who don't know what it is, they will talk about a kris-knife (though it is more properly a dagger--a kife designed for warfare). But the plural of kris, in English, is not "krisses" as far as I know, but "kris-knives", because it "sounds" better.
Addendum: Austronesian padi (growing rice) came into English by 1623 as "paddy field", with a plural "paddy fields". Only in 1948 did "paddies", short for "paddy fields", become accepted English. (See Etymology.com.)
So, the bottom line is that when words are not English words, we need to treat the reader with extra respect, because we are asking them to learn a new word. So we mark it with italics, then they know they are not crazy--it is a new word. We provide enough context (sometimes just a word or a few in parentheses) so they have a definition ... and we remain sensitive to issues of inflection. For example, we would probably not give them gaj (elephant), because gajs is awful in English. Rather we would probably give gaja (elephant), or gajas (elephants). But there are still issues, what do we do with Hindi hath (hand or hands)? Well, you see how I would do it.
Actually, puja worries me slightly, because this word is in Indonesian too (borrowed from Sanskrit a very long time ago), but it only means 'praise' in that language. Because Indonesian doesn't inflect, I wouldn't speak of pujis if bringing puji into English, but nor would I use puji puji--the Indonesian plural--I'd treat it as a mass noun, which 'praise' often is in English anyway, and puji often is in Indonesian too. That brings us back to puja in Marathi. If this is a countable noun in Marathi, like gopi, you will want to use an "s" to make English plurals. But I would guess bhakti does not work like that. English speaks of religious "devotions", where Marathi would probably see the whole thing as bhakti that cannot be divided. An "English-only" reader may need some clue that bhaktis is not appropriate (with complicated exceptions like the Subway Bhaktis, where the plural refers to the members of the group not to activity).
Anyway, I don't think the plural issues I've described are a serious readability or precision issue in this article, at this point, mainly because you, Tiger, are bilingual and using reliable sources. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you about the inconsistencies in English with capitals and plurals of Indic words, but these are not introduced by me or you but Reliable academic sources have used the words that way, so IMO, it is better to follow them.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! That too is helpful for me to hear. I just checked with a native Indonesian speaker, who is now fluent in English. Her view was that although she might talk about puji (their word, sometimes puja puji, meaning 'singing to God') to an English-only speaker, she'd just never use plural forms in English because they don't do that in Indonesian. She'd always phrase the English in a similar way to Indonesian, so the word would always be puji (or puja puji).
Now you confirm another side of things for me, that you are willing to copy English sources that make plurals of Marathi words that you might not make yourself. Yes, that's certainly the safest course.
As I said, I don't think this is an issue in this article, right now, so much as something needing care. I think sources will actually differ in what they do. In fact, I'm sure you've seen that already—"brahminic" is an excellent example Google Scholar gives a roughly 50-50 split for capital or not capital. So which reliable source do we follow? Do we follow different sources at Vakari and Avatar? What should Wikipedia do? Our own Wiki manual of style doesn't tell us, it says use sources and be consistent. So what I'm really saying here is: editors working in the Indology area should probably have a mini, specialist style guide that they agree to. I think I'm discovering that should definitely include native speakers of Indian languages and English, but maybe even more importantly, it should include bilingual people and should be written to serve people who know nothing about Indian language--i.e. the average Wiki reader.
It crossess my mind that the glossary above could be the beginning of some kind of internal, shared list of non-English words used in Indology articles, which could help writers of future articles to know where they can feel comfortable using special words. It needs to be information and guidelines rather than rules, or people will use it to have arguments rather than produce clear text. Anyway, enough said for now. I believe I have the whole Worship section to copyedit, after which I'm essentially finished. Though I do intend to specify what conventions I've followed and to explain why (which will include sources as appropriate). That way, others can reproduce anything I've done and improve upon it.
OK, here's what I'll do. I need 24 hours to work on real life just now. Tomorrow I'll finish Vithoba. After that, it'll take me a week or so, I'll draft two guides in my own User space: a Writer Guide--writing Indology articles for ease of reading; and a Reader Guide--a short introduction to reading Indology without going crazy. Obviously it will need help from people like you and Anish to get these into working shape, but once we have them, people at FAC can read the Reader Guide before commenting, and writers can be refered by people at FAC to the Writer Guide. It saves everyone going over some issues time and time again, and it stops things from ever getting personal.
Anyway, just a thought. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent idea Alastair....it will be seminal work on wikipedia.......in the long run it will be a big help for Indology articles....I will chip in whenever I can.--Anish (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

Does anyone know a source that tells us how many Vithoba temples there are, and where they are? I guess this might be a more difficult question than it sounds, because there could be lots of small shrines that have never been counted. Just a thought. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is like asking how many churches are in the world? There are numerous small shrines to Vithoba, all over Maharashtra, many more keep on popping up every year. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "yama on his feet", regarding the clothing Vithoba wears. I know Yama, but not yama. Someone please help. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS There's a nice quote from Tukaram in Pande's article (of three months ago).

  • tirthi dhondapani, deva rokada sajjani
  • holy places are made of mere stones, God is in wisdom and in the pious

Alastair Haines (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of iconography is from a Marathi religious book that describes the Vithoba image of Pandharpur. Added meaning of yama. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tiger. I am still concerned about this, because reins and bridle are associated with the mouths of horses, not with human feet. I understand the Sanskrit, yama also means 'twin', which fits the name of the god Yama. A bridle has two, twin sides, one on the left and the other on the right of the horse's mouth, likewise the reins. These allow a horse to be "pulled" left or right. Many uses of yama in Sanskrit seem to be associated with chariots and horses. It is possible that something of this sense is intended for the feet of Vithoba. If so, it may mean sandles, because they have straps of leather like reins. It may also refer to something "restraining" Vithoba, as though tied to a brick, staying to provide lasting blessing to Pandharpur. Because feet (like hath) come in pairs, yama seems to fit, but how? Here are links to rein and bridle in English. I'm sure you'll see the problem. If we can't work out an English word for yama, I think we may, unfortunately, be best off not describing the feet. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commented out the unclear "yama", but retained other marks on the feet.--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect handling! :)
Does the god Yama have a sign? Is that sign on Vithoba's feet?
Theologically, if Vithoba is Vishnu the Preserver and Sustainer of life, he triumphs over Yama, god of death ... until the end, of course.
I would not be surprised if this symobolism was involved. But I cannot know it unless a source tells me so.
Perhaps an editor will supply a source that tells us about this one day. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Options

[edit]

Here's a good example of needing some kind of consistency, so readers don't get distracted by wondering why things are changing.

  • Varkari Panth (lit. "The Pilgrims' Path") or Varkari sampradaya (lit. "The Pilgrims' tradition")

This is a problem because the first two words look like a book title, which is what italics + capitals indicates—e.g. The Lord of the Rings. Foreign words are written in italics + lower case letters—honi soit qui mal y pense—unless they are names, in which case they are in capital letters without italics—Mao Zedong, Łódź Voivodeship. Theoretically, double quotation marks indicate quotations, of course—"To be or not to be"; but where the quotes indicate a translation, this is often done using single quotes—logos means 'word' in Greek. The last rule is not consistently applied. There are other uses of italics (for example, for emphasis) and of quotation marks (for example, to signal a "so called" something). In fact, when indicating that a word is being named rather than used, either of the last two methods can be found—e.g. the word we are discussing is worship, or the word we are discussing is "worship".

These things are all discussed in reliable sources, the rules have changed over time (and will continue to do so), they change from country to country and from one writer or publisher to another. A fair bit of variation is almost always allowed, but not within a single piece of writing. Each piece of writing should stick to its own rules wherever it got them, with the exception that when quoting another piece of writing, it should generally copy what that piece of writing did.

The above is the right way to present the quote, although we do not spell philosopher with a capital P in English any longer, just as we don't spell Brahmin as Brackman. The italics in the last sentence indicated discussion of "words as words" not foreign language terms, and the quotes and italics just used indicated "so called" usage and emphasis, respectively. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your improvement of the typography to the following:
  • The Varkari Panth (lit. 'The Pilgrims' Path') or Varkari sampradaya (lit. 'The Pilgrims' tradition') ...
I have only altered it by placing sampradaya in italics. To an English-only reader, "Vakari" works as an adjective for the foreign word sampradaya. There are other good ways of doing this. If you are unhappy with the method I've suggested, please feel free to change it, and then I'll understand better what you want to say. Whatever you want to say will be right, I'm sure, I'm just playing the part of an English-only reader, and reflecting what seems strange. I'm sorry about being fussy, but everyone knows the conventions in these things are tricky and complex. :( Everything should be good now though. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But Varkari is not an adjective of sampradaya. "Varkari Panth" and "Varkari sampradaya"

are complete names of the religious tradition. Alastair, please change to convey this meaning. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect feedback, Tiger!
I think you are telling me that "Vakari Panth" and "Vakari Sampradaya" should be all capitals and take the definite article the. This would be a little like the Roman Catholic Church, or the Plymouth Brethren. We cannot write "Plymouth brethren" (sort of a karmadharaya compound or adj-n), because this would mean 'the brothers who live in Plymouth' (adj-n).
This is very easily fixed and will look better as well as being clearer and easier to read. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Literally ...

[edit]

If the word "literally" can be avoided in translation, that is ideal. It should only be added when it might help the reader get a better "feel" for a word. There is an excellent example in this article.

  • digambar ('naked', literally 'sky clad')

The word "literally" is really only needed when the original language word is being used metaphorically. It introduces a mini "etymology".

I have simplified the translations in the sentence above, because they are "more or less" literal, which is what the reader expects. It is a little confusing for me to say this, but actually "Pilgrim" is literal, yet "Path" is metaphorical in English in this context. But that is perfect for us, since "Vakari" is fairly literal and "Panth" is almost the same metaphor in Indic languages as it is in English. This is not surprising, because historically both words come from the same very ancient source. Not only that, religions in many languages are known by names like "the ... Way". It seems the metaphor that religion is like a path along which you walk is very natural to the human mind.

In case you are uncomfortable with it, I have used the definite article the only once, although

  • The Varkari Panth (Pilgrim Path) or the Varkari Sampradaya (Pilgrim Tradition) is ...

would also be good English.

Does Marathi use a definite article? Does it use it in different or similar ways to English? Alastair Haines (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Path is a literal translation of Panth. Pilgrim is a rough translation of Varkari. Varkari is vari + kari (doer), that is, one who does the vari - the annual pilgrimage to Pandharpur. 'Varkari Panth' should be put in quotes or italics to show it is a formal name like Roman Catholic Church. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marathi does not have capitals. I'm not sure you "feel" the importance of capitals in English. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi needs no italics or quotes, just like Roman Catholic Church, or a better analogy still—the Catholic devotional tradition known as Cursillo or Emmaus Walk (respectively from the Spanish cursillo and the Greek form of the 1st century Palestinian town, Emmaus). Cursillo and Emmaus do not need italics or quotes because English language speakers don't mind proper nouns sounding "non-English", unlike ordinary, lower case words, which they do expect to be English, or "marked" in some way to show that they are not.
Would you be comfortable with Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian People's Party)?
One reason I didn't use a second definite article is because I wanted to make the two names sound more close to the original language. It is a very, very subtle point, but I am actually trying hard to learn from you the correct understanding of things in the original language context, so I can do my best to present that with full force in the English. I have been trying to provide sources to show you what I'm doing so you can do it yourself as you write. You will always understand what needs to be said better than an English-only writer. What I'm trying to do is faithfully present that so English-only readers will understand it as closely to the right way as possible. Often this is easy, sometimes it is hard, sometimes there is more than one way of doing it.
Please keep telling me anything you are nervous about, because I have no other reliable source regarding Marathi usage and understanding. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input, will be useful for other articles I write. What is done now is enough for Varkari Panth.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vyasatirtha

[edit]

"Rajguru" I understand, "preceptor" is harder for me. A rajguru is a teacher (guru) for the king (raj). So indeed is a preceptor a teacher. But the English word is very uncommon and normally found in technical uses like nursing or the Christian usage Wikipedia documents.

I recommend we use the term "royal advisor" here. This is a very well-known and broad term in English, and would include someone who was considered to be a reliable source of either practical or spiritual information for a king.

Tiger knows the sources better than I do. Perhaps you could describe what they say about Vyasatirtha's job. Then we can select English words that: readers will understand, accurately fall within the definition of rajguru, and also summarise what reliable sources tell us about Vyasatirtha. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

guru is a loanword. Lets use it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's clever thinking. :D
I'll support your choice.
We'll see what others think.
Loanwords like "raj" and "guru" do shift a little in meaning when used in English, that's how we know they have become genuine English words now! :)
Let's allow reviewers to comment, if they think it worth doing so. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor nit-picking

[edit]
Corrected. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In both my British and American English dictionaries, "refering" is spelling with two r's as "referring". Since the article uses a single r spelling three times, the spelling seems deliberate so I won't change it myself, but you might double-check if it's correct in your spelling reference. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
corrected. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last one. Re: "Vithoba was first worshipped as a pastoral god as early as the sixth century." All other uses of centuries in the article I could find used numeric (e.g. 6th) forms. Although an author is referenced, it doesn't look like a direct quote to keep the form. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6th used. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. Doing. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me too Michael! :) Please also feel free to improve prose where you judge things could be smoother. Two eyes are certainly better than one in such things. I'm not too precious about my tastes (except maybe some;). Alastair Haines (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More nit-picking

[edit]

WP:MoS notes that major revered literary works do not take italics: Bible (and Genesis, Psalm 119, the Gospel according to Matthew, Epistle to the Hebrews, Revelation, etc.), New Testament, Qur'an, and so on. This extends to Hindu scriptures also: so Rgveda, Vishnu Purana and so on. I was very careful to leave major works unitalicised and italicise minor ones. They've been "corrected". This sort of thing happens often. I'll see about sourcing a list of Hindu scriptures that should remain unitalicised. Meanwhile, a rule of thumb is: for anything that looks like a Veda, Upanishad or Purana—no italics. Could others please help with watching this. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a stylistic concern, but I dislike structure of the lead's sentence "In the process of his final identification with Vishnu, Vithoba—it has been proposed—may have been: a hero stone, a pastoral deity, a Jain saint, or a manifestation of Shiva or even Buddha." Adjacent conditional phrases in "it has been proposed—may have been", along with the "has/have been" duplication in close proximity and parenthetical/interjection pause immediately followed by a colon/list pause, read clunky to me, almost like a literary stutter. Might you consider merging the "proposed" part into the "may have been" part to form one phrase? Perhaps something along the lines of "Vithoba was proposed to have been:".

To really nit-pick, in "or a manifestation of Shiva or even Buddha." the list's terminal or could be slightly confusing due to the following or, leading to Buddha being read as another list entry rather than as a different manifestation. I considered restoring one of the em dashes removed above to replace the second or as "a manifestation of Shiva—even Buddha.", but I'm not sure the change improves the read. Probably fine as it is, the issue is trivial, regardless. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the process of his final identification with Vishnu, Vithoba—it has been proposed—may have been: a hero stone, a pastoral deity, a Jain saint, or a manifestation of Shiva or even Buddha.
  • Minimal change: In the process of his final identification with Vishnu, Vithoba may have been: a hero stone, a pastoral deity, a Jain saint, a manifestation of Shiva—or even the Buddha.
Nice work Michael. As it stands "Vithoba—it has been proposed—may have been" includes semantic redundancy, with consequent infelicities like you mention. It should be improved somehow. One difficulty is that the verb should distribute across all proposals. These proposals are not all of the same kind. I have listed the proposals in chronological order from the perspective of Vithoba and devotees. What complicates things is that the first four are recent academic reconstructions. The last is a common devotional belief. One sentence (and one verb) is being pressed to say too much.
Perhaps we could say something like:
  • Re-write: Most devotees now identify Vithoba with Vishnu or his avatar Krishna. Many specifically identify him with the Buddha, as an avatar of Vishnu. Various Indologists have proposed a prehistory for Vithoba worship where he was previously: a hero stone, a pastoral deity, a manifestation of Shiva, a Jain saint, or even all of these at various times for various devotees.
Reference to the Buddha needs to be a little careful, because Siddhartha Gautama is considered to be a historical man of the Kshatriya caste by a consensus of scholars, who would not be drawn on whether this historical person was also the Vishnu of faith.
I'm not quite happy with the "was proposed" of your suggestion, but "has been proposed to have been" may not be to everyone's taste, but would be accurate distributively, and "legit" use of English. Feel free to ignore this, or feel free to modify my three sentence option as a replacement for the sentence currently in the text.
On the second point, again I broadly agree. The reader cannot be assumed to know that the Buddha is not considered to be a manifestation of Shiva, rather he is associated with Vishnu. I think my three sentence proposal above spells things out better than the current text. Whatever the linguistic rationale, the meaning is significantly clarified by spreading the ideas over separate sentences. I attempted to be too minimalistic in changes to the text, and tried to be too concise, resulting in something unclear and infelicitous, please adjust according to common sense and good taste. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Alastair's 3-line suggestion a little. The three sentence para is good, but then this sentence's info is repeated. "While generally considered a manifestation of the Hindu deities Vishnu or Krishna, he is sometimes associated with the god Shiva, the Buddha or both." This sentence can not be removed from the first para, as Vithoba's Vishnu-Krishna identification is important. Also a hero stone et al identifications need to be in the last para as not so important to be in the first. How is the foll. sentences?
  • "In the process of his final identification with Vishnu, Vithoba was (or should it be "is") proposed to have been: a hero stone, a pastoral deity, a Jain saint, a manifestation of Shiva—or even the Buddha"
  • Putting only the last sentence of the 3-line para in the lead "Various Indologists have proposed a prehistory for Vithoba worship where he was previously: a hero stone, a pastoral deity, a manifestation of Shiva, a Jain saint, or even all of these at various times for various devotees." Both replacing the existing sentence in question. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, Tiger! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second choice is better imo, Tiger.
The first sentence has a complex tense issue:
is proposed — simple present passive,
was proposed — simple past passive, or
has been proposed — present perfect passive.
See English conjugation tables#To be played. The most precise tense is the present perfect passive, because: the proposals were made in the past, but are still relevant now. The simple past would suggest that the proposals are no longer accepted now. The simple present would suggest that all proposals are current consensus among academics.
Go with the second sentence, even highly educated native English speakers don't like tenses getting this complicated. ;)
Alastair Haines (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also like the second version. I had to pause when reading that sentence (as it currently stands) the first time—the emdashes, the colon, the commas, and the list all combine to make it stutter.Priyanath talk 03:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More nitpicking:

  • In the 'Etymology' section, the phrase 'Varkari etymology' threw me. Is there such a thing? Maybe 'Varkari tradition' is more accurate?
  • In the 'Iconography' section, it says "Vithoba is shown standing arms-akimbo on the brick thrown by the devotee Pundalik." It's not until later in the article that you read the story of Pundalik throwing the brick. That needs to be explained earlier. Or if not, it should be "a brick", since we don't know about "the" brick yet.
  • Under 'Festivals', it says "Up to six hundred thousand Varkaris travel to Pandharpur for the yatra on Shayani Ekadashi. This is the 11th day of the waxing moon in the lunar month of Ashadha." It would be helpful to have a range of western calendar dates when this happens. I think westerners will be curious to know just when six hundred thousand Varkaris are travelling to Panharpur!

I also made several minor copy and grammar edits to the article—if any of them are reverted I won't take offense! The article is very thorough and well researched. I'm guessing it's the best article on Vithoba available on the internet, which is what a Featured Article should be. Congratulations on such a great article. Priyanath talk 04:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! What makes the article worth criticising is that it is already so outstandingly good. Look after yourself, Tiger, and manage your time carefully. Very many people can benefit from your work. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response and the edits:

  • Etymology changed.
  • Iconography: "The prescribed iconography of Vithoba stipulates that he be shown standing arms-akimbo upon a brick, which is associated with the legend of the devotee Pundalik." in Etymology has already established the association.
  • Western calender months given: Lead: "Shayani Ekadashi in the month of Ashadha, and Prabodini Ekadashi in the month of Kartik." Festivals: "Ashadha (June–July) and Kartik (October–November) Ekadashis" "Up to six hundred thousand Varkaris travel to Pandharpur for the yatra on Shayani Ekadashi, the 11th day of the waxing moon in the lunar month of Ashadha"--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - at some point you might want to ask someone who knows nothing about these things to read the article. That would be a good test run for getting it through FA. Priyanath talk 21:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments

[edit]

As requested, here are my comments on the article from a WP:FAC view point. I will work on this in sections. These are all just suggestions / points of discussion, feel free to disagree.

General

  • There are several one or two sentence paragraphs throughout the article that in most cases should be combined with others, or perhaps expanded.
  • A few of these also have no references, for example Reconstruction of the historical development of Vithoba worship has been much debated. In particular, several alternative theories have been proposed regarding the earliest stages, as well as the point at which he came to be recognised as a distinct deity. or The physical characteristics of the central murti (image) of Vithoba at Pandharpur, and various textual references to it, have inspired theories relating to Vithoba worship.
  • The images are somewhat bunched together - could one of the temple images be moved up higher in the article to avoid a large block of text with no images?
  • Most readers will be fuzzy on the geography - could a map of India showing the two states where Vithoba worhips is concentrated be added?
  • The image in the Etymology and other names section is just a crop of the image of the door in the Identifications section. I am not sure what having both images adds to the article.

Lead

  • I would link akimbo
  • It seems odd to link the second variant of the consort's name in ...sometimes accompanied by his main consort Rakhumai (Rukmini). (and not the first name)
  • I would not include the latitude and longitude in the lead in Vithoba's main temple stands at Pandharpur in Maharashtra, close to the Karnataka border (17°40′N 75°20′E). in any case, and since Pandharpur is linked, interested readers can follow the link to see where it is.
  • I would use "his" instead of "the" in Vithoba legends revolve around the devotee Pundalik, ... so change to Vithoba legends revolve around his devotee Pundalik, ...
  • Add a comma to Other devotional literature dedicated to Vithoba includes the Kannada hymns of the Haridasa[,] and Marathi versions of the generic Hindu arati songs, associated with rituals of offering light to the deity.

Etymology...

  • Need a ref for The prescribed iconography of Vithoba stipulates that he be shown standing arms-akimbo upon a brick, which is associated with the legend of the devotee Pundalik.
  • In general I would try and briefly identify the experts cited in this section and throughout the article. So William Crooke, orientalist, and the Varkari poet-saint Tukaram are good, but According to M. S. Mate... is too vague. I would also be consistent on including dates or not for the experts.
  • Why is Bittidev in italics in the Hoysala king Vishnuvardhana alias Bittidev? No other name is italicized, just words.
  • A bit awkward Another popular epithet for Vithoba is discussed by the Jain author-saint Hemachandra (1089–1172 AD)—Panduranga or Pandaranga, which means 'the white god' in Sanskrit. perhaps something like Panduranga or Pandaranga is another popular epithet for Vithoba, which means 'the white god' in Sanskrit. The Jain author-saint Hemachandra (1089–1172 AD) notes it is also used as an epithet for the god Rudra-Shiva. (not sure if this is correct, but you get the idea)
  • Need a ref for Another name, Pandharinath, also refers to Vithoba as the lord of Pandhari (yet another variant for Pandharpur). and perhaps add the one sentence paragraph following to this paragraph, perhaps with a better transition.

More to come, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Ruhrfisch quality criticism. :)
Agreed about paragraphing, Tiger wasn't totally happy with one or two paragraphing changes I proposed. My taste is closer to Ruhr's I suspect, but I also respect Tiger's judgment. I think it is best Tiger decides which paragraphs to merge or to split. I think it is fair to say most people feel most comfortable with middle-sized paragraphs consistently throughout a whole article, rather than some very short and very long ones. It is not a rule and not right or wrong. But the consistent, middle-sized principle is probably best suited to an encyclopedia for general readership.
In general, I overlooked unreferenced sentences like those indicated, because the references followed in later ones. Again, I agree that Ruhrfisch represents a more experienced judgment of what Wiki FAC processes prefer. References can be repeated to cover these sentences. This should not be hard work.
Image comments make sense to me. Nothing to add. Good point about akimbo, certainly not common in English usage, but not uncommon either, perfect word in context, and used in sources.
Linking Rukmini makes more sence because that is the more commonly known form of the name (and actual article title). Rakhumai is in the text and Rukmini in parentheses because context makes the Marathi form of the name more appropriate. An analogy would be, "one classic patriotic song is God bless America (that is the United States)". The appropriate word in context is different to the most common usage, hence the most common usage is indicated in parentheses and receives the link. Certainly other preferences could be applied. Mine are not strong enough to object to a change, though Tiger and I discussed this very issue and agreed on the current method of presentation.
"His devotee Pundalik" is indeed slightly nicer, it is smoother, less academically distanced, without becoming casual or unencyclopedic. Tiger's style is scrupulously academic and rigorous in following sources. I think he benefits from hearing that he can be a little more relaxed. The comma suggestion also strikes me as an improvement.
Good points on refs needed in Etymology section. Bittidev should not be in italics, agreed. However, I believe dates are consistently offered for poet-saints at first mention. Only a few times are they also cited as experts. It is also possible that I added dates for experts earlier than the 20th century. This is slightly, but not entirely arbitrary. The convention I follow is current scholars ("current" assessed generously) get no dates, older scholars get dates to alert the reader that scholarship may have moved on, without cluttering the text with prose to make that point.
Two sentences better than one in Paduranga discussion, agreed.
Summary—I think only in the case of Rakhumai (Rukmini) do I actually disagree with Ruhr. Though the convention regarding dates for people referred to in the article is another point worth a little more interaction.
Thanks for taking the time to scrutinise things so closely and fairly Ruhr. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome - I am not done yet. I mostly commented on things that I would have commented on at FAC, but I never know what people will pick up on there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replies

General

  • There are several one or two sentence paragraphs throughout the article that in most cases should be combined with others, or perhaps expanded.
Some 2-3 paras are "topic sentences", which i was told were missing in the earlier FAC. The two below are some of them. "The physical characteristics of the central murti.." and "Reconstruction of the historical..." sum up the whole sections, that are about to come, so are self-explanatory when read along with the suceeding para.
OK, I figured topic sentences are usually part of a larger paragraph, but it is your call. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few of these also have no references, for example Reconstruction of the historical development of Vithoba worship has been much debated. In particular, several alternative theories have been proposed regarding the earliest stages, as well as the point at which he came to be recognised as a distinct deity. or The physical characteristics of the central murti (image) of Vithoba at Pandharpur, and various textual references to it, have inspired theories relating to Vithoba worship.
As explained earlier.
OK, if made part of the following paragraph they get apparent "cover" from those refs. ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images are somewhat bunched together - could one of the temple images be moved up higher in the article to avoid a large block of text with no images?
I am sorry i can't help this. As the images where the surrounding text relates to them. Found no images with valid licenses for earlier sections.
Sorry to be unclear - I am not sure why File:Vitthala temple DK.jpg has to be placed where it is in the article. Could it be moved up earlier in a section which is now all text? This seems like the best candidate to move, if you want to move an image. Its caption is not a complete sentence and so should not end with a full stop (period). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most readers will be fuzzy on the geography - could a map of India showing the two states where Vithoba worship is concentrated be added?
Basically this a religion article, so IMO temples, devotees and the deity are more suitable. Maps may make this article look like a geography article.
  • The image in the Etymology and other names section is just a crop of the image of the door in the Identifications section. I am not sure what having both images adds to the article.
There was only 1 image of Vithoba himself, so i felt that the crop can be beneficial. The crop can be removed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep the closeup of Vithoba if only keeping one image. The whole door image does show him as one of ten Dashavatars, and, as noted, the article could use some more images. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Done
  • It seems odd to link the second variant of the consort's name in ...sometimes accompanied by his main consort Rakhumai (Rukmini). (and not the first name)
Rakhumai is the popular name in the Vitoba tradition so needs to be first. Can be done this way: [[Rakhumai|Rukmini]] or [[Rakhuma (Rukmini)|Rukmini]] Here, there is redundacy though
OK, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not include the latitude and longitude in the lead in Vithoba's main temple stands at Pandharpur in Maharashtra, close to the Karnataka border (17°40′N 75°20′E). in any case, and since Pandharpur is linked, interested readers can follow the link to see where it is.
Removed.
  • I would use "his" instead of "the" in Vithoba legends revolve around the devotee Pundalik, ... so change to Vithoba legends revolve around his devotee Pundalik, ...
Nice suggestion. Clearer
  • Add a comma to Other devotional literature dedicated to Vithoba includes the Kannada hymns of the Haridasa[,] and Marathi versions of the generic Hindu arati songs, associated with rituals of offering light to the deity.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology...

  • Need a ref for The prescribed iconography of Vithoba stipulates that he be shown standing arms-akimbo upon a brick, which is associated with the legend of the devotee Pundalik.
Available in Iconography section. "Vithoba is shown standing arms-akimbo on the brick thrown by the devotee Pundalik....[2][7]"
  • In general I would try and briefly identify the experts cited in this section and throughout the article. So William Crooke, orientalist, and the Varkari poet-saint Tukaram are good, but According to M. S. Mate... is too vague. I would also be consistent on including dates or not for the experts.
Added who Mate is.
  • Why is Bittidev in italics in the Hoysala king Vishnuvardhana alias Bittidev? No other name is italicized, just words.
Done.
  • A bit awkward Another popular epithet for Vithoba is discussed by the Jain author-saint Hemachandra (1089–1172 AD)—Panduranga or Pandaranga, which means 'the white god' in Sanskrit. perhaps something like Panduranga or Pandaranga is another popular epithet for Vithoba, which means 'the white god' in Sanskrit. The Jain author-saint Hemachandra (1089–1172 AD) notes it is also used as an epithet for the god Rudra-Shiva. (not sure if this is correct, but you get the idea)
Absolutely correct. clearer.
  • Need a ref for Another name, Pandharinath, also refers to Vithoba as the lord of Pandhari (yet another variant for Pandharpur). and perhaps add the one sentence paragraph following to this paragraph, perhaps with a better transition.
Zelliot (1988) p. 170 is the ref which also ref for next sentence. As I understand, we have the same ref for every sentence in the para, 1 at the end of para is OK--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One map only Tiger, that mightn't be so bad, but where do we get free maps? Draw one? ;)
Also, even a picture with the Bhima river or Pandharpur would be nice.
Perhaps you or a friend could take one?
Ruhrfisch is only pointing out what people tend to observe at FAC. Pictures matter to people.
Alastair Haines (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections if an image is added in an appropriate section. I am open to image addition. I would not remove it, but i can't add it as i do not have the technical abilities to produce a such an image. The Pandharpur images would be available by 31st Dec, i am visiting the temple shortly.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Pandharpur article has File:BHIMARATHIDSC00441.JPG - not sure if any of the structures pictured are Vithoba related. There is a base map of India File:India-locator-map-blank.svg that could be used - just color in the two states. Again, this is only a suggestion, feel free to ignore it. I will try and review some more soon, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I had added the BHIMARATHIDSC00441.JPG image in the article, but User:Elcobbola who is renown for his knowledge of image copyrights had replied to my query "Thanks. The other (Bhima image) is declared PD. "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain." A date stamp is present on photo. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see that, but it doesn't matter. We can't rely on a boilerplate template. We need an explicit assertion of authorship. Did the uploader take this image? Did a friend or relative take it? Did they find it on the website? Эlcobbola talk 18:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)"[10]
As said earlier any way i was going to Pandharpur, so images would not be a problem. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

[edit]

Origins and development

  • Identify briefly who R.C. Dhere and G. A. Deleury are - why do their opinions matter?
Added. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly clearer sentence Vithoba is also assimilated in Buddhism as a form of Buddha, who in turn is viewed as a form of Vishnu in Hinduism.[16]
Agree. Many scholars would say that Indic religions show a high degree of synchretism—a kind of "consensus" minimising conflict. An alternative for the sentence:
"Vithoba is (sometimes?) assimilated into Buddhism as a form of the Buddha (who is himself, likewise, commonly assimilated into Hinduism as a form of Vishnu)."
Two sentences might be even better still. Concise expression is not always clearest expression. I leave final decision for others. Many good solutions.Alastair Haines (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, first recommendation. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The present tense seems odd to me here - I guess I think of the assimilation as a past occurence

Despite assimilation in Vaishnavism as Krishna-Vishnu, Vithoba does [did?] not inherit the erotic overtones of Krishna, such as his dalliance with the gopis (milkmaids).

Disagree. Simple present tense is definitely best here. Alternatives:
"Vithoba did not inherit" (simple past) suggests one single known event in past — not true;
"Vithoba has not inherited" (present perfect passive) works because past event relevant now — but why use complex PPP when simple present will do?
The verb inherit permits the tense because it implies present state based on past event: "We inherit half our genes from mum and half from dad", "Vithoba does not inherit erotic overtones". We don't care when inheritance happened, we care only whether it has happened by now. This sentence is about a present state (that doesn't exist because there was no past event). Happier?Alastair Haines (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this is resolved, Thanks to two great English pundits. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • article inconsistencies, why is it mentions that the Hoysala king Someshvara (use "the") but records Yadava king Krishna granting and notably Yadava king Ramachandra's minister (no use of "the")
Agree (reluctantly). Because it has multiple editors! ;) Tiger prefers no article and I prefer the article but don't insist on it. Most European readers and native English speakers will prefer sentences with articles. I recommend we change to that throughout, but regret it deeply. Less use of the article is authentic "Indian English" and permissible academic English, they are absolutely legitimate varieties of English. However, consistency rules, and standard English uses the article.Alastair Haines (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! I am very glad you are open in that direction. Others may disagree with us at FAC. I am thrilled if the three of us are agreed on supporting this "flavour" within the article. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "the". Sounds better--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead image has no caption - I assume it is the "central murti (image) of Vithoba at Pandharpur"? If it is the lead image, perhaps refer to this here?
It is not the central murti of Vithoba at Pandharpur. I am searching a free image of Vithoba of Pandharpur, a fair use image of Pandharpur's Vithoba was removed and deleted in process of FAC. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what "IAST original" means in "Viṭhobā is neither Viṣṇu nor Śiva. Viṭhobā is Viṭhobā" (IAST original)
Explanation. The article would be inconsistent in using the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Translation if this was not noted. This allows the reader to be clear that IAST was used because the source used it, rather than an editor supplying it. We should always note this when using emphasis. Sometimes it can be helpful to note the same regarding IAST.
Perfect! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IAST original is OK, can be treated as "sic". --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following sentence, would it make more sense to say Despite this Although, some priests of the temple point to marks on the Vithoba image's chest as proof of Vithoba being Vishnu, in his form as Krishna.[7]?
changed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could ref [7] be moved to the end of the last sentence in the Iconography section? If not get rid of the space before the ref, and does and the symbols of a flag (dhwaja), goad (ankusha) and thunderbolt (vajra) on the feet. need a ref?
removed. Anyway not so important, most images i have seen do not have these signs. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worship

  • Need refs for In addition to the rites at the main temple in Pandharpur, Haridasa traditions dedicated to Vitthala flourish in Karnataka. and Varkaris also give him credit with the saying—Dnyanadev rachila paya—which means "Dnyaneshwar laid the foundation".
"In addition to the rites at the main temple in Pandharpur, Haridasa traditions dedicated to Vitthala flourish in Karnataka" is a topic sentence, Haridasa sect is a reference. Added ref for other--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps make the caption clear, so The Vitthala temple in Hampi, Karnataka, is believed to have been built by Krishnadevaraya.
Done, but made "is built" as there is no dispute. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps add a sentence explaining the difference between ritual worship and visual adoration, or at least link them if possible.
Agree, but how? I seem to recall that both puja and darshan are indeed linked at fist usage in the article. Puja, however, is used so often I think we need a sidebar for it somewhere to prompt the reader to remember it. Since puja is not the only word like this, I also think a glossary should be considered.
That's one of many options (and normally an excellent one). Problems are that we can only link once; and sometimes it is ideal to use the Indic word in the text, other times it is better to use an English gloss, yet other times a more fulsome prose description works best. The best place to link puja is when we use the word itself (imo). The option you propose works best if the link and idea are only really ever needed once. Perhaps that's true of darshan, it is certainly not true of puja. I think this issue is part of something bigger and important to Indic studies articles. I'll refrain from discussin it in depth here, you can see some of my thoughts in Talk:Vithoba#Glossary above. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "he"? His sleep begins on Shayani Ekadashi (literally the 'sleeping 11th') and [he] finally awakens from his slumber, four months later
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the "bridght fortnight" in at Kole (Satara district), in memory of Ghadge Bova, which has a fair on the fifth day of the bright fortnight in Magha month ?
Agree. I've overlooked this or it's been added. "Bright fortnight" is a literal translation of an Indian term for the period of the "waxing moon". The article should generally use "waxing moon", though the original language phrase and literal meaning should be (and are) noted somewhere.
Done --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a direct quote and needs a ref ...the temple is believed to have housed the central image from Pandharpur, which Vijayanagara king Krishnadevaraya took "to enhance his own status" or to save the image from plunder by Muslim invaders...
Done. I usually place references about a whole para (or 2 lines) at the end if the same references are used for every sentence.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Legends

  • First paragraph needs a ref
"As discussed in the devotional works " References are there."Legends regarding Vithoba usually focus on the devotee Pundalik—who is credited with bringing the deity to Pandharpur—or on Vithoba's role as a savior to the poet-saints of the Varkari faith." is a topic sentence, whole para references for it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it make sense to have this section earlier in the article? It seems to provide more insight into what the devotees of Vithoba believe about him.
What format do you suggest? Surely worth a thought. Legends is put at the end as "Devotional works" and "Varkari sect" have to be discussed before. Rationale of the format now is: Names --> how Vithoba came to be in his current distinct form ---> with whom (deities) is he associated ---> How does iconography support the identifications ---> consorts - associations with various traditions --> Current form of worship ---> Legends --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it were to be moved, I think I would put it right after the Etymology as the legends are quite old, but again it is your call. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but i do not agree on this one as stated before IMO "Devotional works" and "Varkari sect" have to be discussed before, as they consider the background to the texts and Varkari poet-saints. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  • On reading the whole article, there is a bit of repetition which may be objected to at FAC. Some repetition is good, but does the legend section really need to repeat again that Pundalik brought the deity to Pandharpur (as one example)?
  • There are also several red links - it is not required that an article at FAC have no red links, but it can be helpful to write even stubs for them.

Hope my comments are helpful, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am creating full fledged articles for the red links. In the process, started with Bahinabai and Visoba Khechara. Every section needs to stand on it's own as well as part of the whole, so repetition and refernce to other sections is integrated for readers who may skip sections or read one section at random. It can be easily removed if objected to. We can work on that. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tiger's the one who can really comment, but I'm as impressed as always by both your accuracy and thoroughness, Ruhr. I have one disagreement, though you asked a question, rather than making an assertion, so we probably don't even disagree there. :) I've answered questions where I've been involved or where I might have something relevant to say to aid communication. Where I've made no comment, I simply agree with Ruhr (or have no opinion). Alastair Haines (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. I replied in a few places above. Glad this helps make a very good article even better, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes! I agree, it is an excellent article. I only regret that I didn't put more thought into helping Tiger with some of the repeat material. I think he is the best judge of which parts to trim where they are covered elsewhere. Noch einmals vielen Dank. Tchüss. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two great minds above have really made this article better. Vithoba owes it's current form to copyeditors like Haines and reviewers like Ruhrfisch, and many others who have written in the FAC, on this talk, PR and on my talk. Thanks all. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of my concerns have been changed or replied to, thanks for your kind words. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ellipses

[edit]

Wikipedia:MOS#Ellipses at current revision says the following (layout and emphasis original).

An ellipsis (plural ellipses) is an omission of material from quoted text; or some other omission, perhaps of the end of a sentence, often used in a printed record of conversation. The ellipsis is represented by ellipsis points: a set of three dots.

Style
Ellipsis points (loosely called ellipses) have traditionally been implemented in three ways:
  • Three unspaced periods (...). This is the easiest way, and gives a predictable appearance in HTML. Recommended.
  • Pre-composed ellipsis character (…); generated with the &hellip; character entity, or by insertion from the set below the edit window. This is harder to input and edit, and too small in some fonts. It may be hard to search for. Not recommended.
  • Three spaced periods (. . .). This is an older style that is unnecessarily wide and requires non-breaking spaces to keep it from breaking at the end of a line. Not recommended.

I note three typographic conventions here, the first—Three unspaced periods—is recommended and the other two are not recommended. I have no personal preference in this, so have no objection to following the MOS on this point generally, and in this article in particular. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vithoba images

[edit]

Hello, I have received the permission to use the following Vithoba images :

Can some editor (like Redtigerxyz) well versed with the article incorporate the required images? Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading the images and getting the permission. Have incorporated two of the images, the images of the temple will be put in the temple article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to some restrictions on usage, the images had to be moved to Wikipedia, and deleted from Wikimedia. The new filenames are as follows:

Sorry for the trouble and confusion. The publisher has agreed for the images to be used at Wikipedia with CC attribution, but not completely relinquish the rights ( as reqd by wikimedia ) Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nvineeth forwarded me the email as requested by me. The publisher has put the " non-profit educational purpose only" clause, which is not excepted at wiki. So requesting speedy deletion. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desecration of the Pandharpur temple by Muslims

[edit]

There were many instances of desecration of the Pandharpur temple by Muslims Aurangazeb[1], Afzalkhan[2] also the many attempts and satyagraha for Mandir Pravesh[3] to Dalits, Chokha Mela's tryst with Vitthal[4] etc.. This article is full of sensation like the visible genitals of the image, and other nonsense trivia (YJK), but these important facts are not mentioned. Obviously a lot of effort has gone into this article. Little mention is made of the vari or the pilgrimage.

References

[edit]

These are not wikiquality sources, I am sure those who have worked to get this article FA status would find good enough ones.

  1. ^ The Emperor, summoning Muhammad Khalil and Khidmat Rai, the darogha of hatchet-men… ordered them to demolish the temple of Pandharpur, and to take the butchers of the camp there and slaughter cows in the temple… It was done.
  2. ^ Afzal Khan, after leaving Bijapur to confront Shivaji, first desecrated the temples of goddess Bhavani in Tuljapur and Pandharpur
  3. ^ Gandhi's follower, P.S. Sane, also known as Sane Guruji. In 1947, he went on a fast unto death, till the doors of the temple of Pandharpur were opened to untouchables. Gandhi, concerned about his health and upset by the timing of this fast, requested him to withdraw.
  4. ^ in anguish he wrote, Vedas and the shastras polluted; puranas inauspicious impure; the body, the soul contaminated; the manifest Being is the same. Brahma polluted, Vishnu too; Shankar is impure,inauspicious. Birth impure, dying is impure: says Chokha, pollution stretches without beginning and end.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references provided above, ex, from wordpress, zimbio, encyclopedia (tertiary source) cannot be regarded as WP:RS. I don't think that the article is "full of sensation" and "other nonsense" as put by you. To give few examples, In the oriental races, "classes of men are allowed to walk about in public places stark naked",[11], Gomateshwara ... so there is not question of "sensation". This article has been built on the hard work of several editors. What you regard as "important facts" are WP:UNDUE here. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether you read before you write or not, I myself have written that the above sources are not wikiquality, I have checked WP:UNDUE, I wonder why you call the Mandir Pravesh movement for which somebody as respected as Sane Guruji staked his life a fringe fact or a minority view relating to the shrine, when it is one of the most important incidents in its history? Please have a look at the Temple of Jerusalem, the editors there have not found the destruction and the rebuilding unimportant and have recorded it in its opener. I assume a heathen temple does not warrant such attention. Heathen gods (no need to capitalise) and their crude rituals are studied and described for satiating curiosity. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have written above "Obviously a lot of effort has gone into this article", is it not an ungrudging acknowledgement? The difference is between information and knowledge. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the Chokha Mela quote, it links to a research paper submitted to the University of Alberta. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The research paper is still not considered reliable source.. pls note that it has to be published. However, if the research paper has been published in a journal or by a reputable publisher, it can be considered a reliable source. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Yogesh Khandke's comments:

  • "Desecration of the Pandharpur temple by Muslims": Not the right place to discuss this. This article is about the deity Vithoba, NOT the Pandharpur temple of Vithoba. The article Vithoba temple, Pandharpur can have it.
  • "the visible genitals of the image": The facts are stated: William Crooke as well as the Maharashtra government site were considered as WP:RS in the FAC discussion.
  • The vari has been mentioned in "Festivals" para 1. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desecration etc. continued

[edit]

Creating new section as the earlier had become too long.

See the above image, the corresponding article Gomateshwara, does not even mention the genitals, we are not discussing art or anatomy, Vithoba is an object of reverence. I never said that the sources are bad etc., the reference to the genitals is nothing but voyeurism to put it most mildly. Would you do a similar thing with the image of a lady revered in another religion as the mother of the son of God and write that in the image she looks size 32C. If an encyclopaedia is about such stuff, and I do not know, I apologise for my ignorance.

  1. I feel the article lacks balance, the vari finds a brief mention, please read my earlier post, I have used little and not no mention. The vari is an integral part of the worship of Vithoba, I repeat the article I find is full of cheap sensation and trivia masquerading as scholarship. I can claim to know a little about the practice of the worship of Vithoba, and if a FA is of such quality it is only a reflection of WPs standards.
  2. The Pandharpur temple is the shrine of Vithoba, just as the Tirupati temple is the shrine for Venkateshwara, all other temples are replicas, a lot is written about the image and the temple here too, the desecration should find an important place in the article and not that his s**k shows.
  3. Same argument about the Mandir Pravesh. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
  • "See the above image, the corresponding article Gomateshwara, does not even mention the genitals, we are not discussing art or anatomy,..." But we are discussing Iconography: there are 2 theories about the central image 1. The image is digambar 2. It is dressed but genitals are visible through the clothing. If this can be written without the use of "genitals", or a milder word can be used, please do so
  • Vari is an important part of Vithoba worship, Yes. but it also relates to veneration of the Varkari sants, which is not directly related to adoration of Vithoba, so things like ringan are not mentioned. In Varkari article, a section on Varis is needed
  • The Pandharpur temple is the shrine of Vithoba, the earliest and the most important, but NOT the only shrine, there are other shrines. The Pandharpur temple and image are discussed because "Scholastic investigation of Vithoba's history often begins with consideration of the dating of the chief temple at Pandharpur, which is believed to be the earliest Vithoba temple.", "The physical characteristics of the central murti (image) of Vithoba at Pandharpur, and various textual references to it, have inspired theories relating to Vithoba worship", "All Vithoba images are generally modeled on his central image in Pandharpur.". The desecration is strictly WP:UNDUE as it does not add to the pre-history of Vithoba or the development of his sect. Also, you mentioned Venkateshwara, even that article has just 1 para dedicated to the main temple.
  • "I find is full of cheap sensation and trivia masquerading as scholarship": I can't help that either because some scholars like William Crooke, Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar, Ranade Ramchandra Dattatraya, R C Dhere etc. wrote something that I have to follow and I can't indulge in WP:OR. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were about the quality of editions not the sources that are referenced. Perhaps I am wrong. But the article does not come across as both accurate and interesting and informative to a lay reader, that is what wikipedia should be. It is not a Research Journal. The raw language that I used was because of the reference to the genitals,
सुंदर ते ध्यान उभे विटेवरी करा कटा वरी ठेवुनिया|
तुलसी हारं गळा कासे पीताम्बर आवडे निरंतर तैसे ध्यान||
If it is कासे पीताम्बर, how is it दिगंबर?
You are skirting the Mandir Pravesh

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bala Krishna, Tanjore painting
  • Skanda Purana describes him as दिगंबर, which resembles the characteristics of the Pandharpur image of Vithoba. This is what the ref says. Also "the five-year-old Bala Krishna (infant Krishna). This version is found in manuscripts of both Puranas, Prahlada Maharaj, and the poet-saints, notably Tukaram" This is what the ref says. कासे पीताम्बर true, that's why "Other images and pictures depict him clothed, usually with pitambhara, a yellow dhoti and various gold ornaments—the manner in which the priests of Pandharpur clothe him."
  • Mandir Pravesh is again related to the temple history, Not the deity's.
  • "the article does not come across as both accurate and interesting and informative to a lay reader" The accuracy is assured by references and Verifiable policy. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued

[edit]

The emphasis is on interesting and informative and not accurate. The above description was not to challenge the article but a personal query. Please write about Mandir Pravesh and the Bahujan devotees of Vithoba including those who were not allowed to touch him and how he himself came out of the shrine and gifted his tulsi mal to Chokha.

Also please include the desecration as the Vithoba is quite the presiding deity of Maharashtra, a little like the Lord of the Temple of Pandharpur, should receive the same treatment as the Temple of Jerusalem, see how non-Hindus articles treat their places of worship and if you agree to it give the same reverential treatment to Hindu worship too. I repeat I have not challenged the facts, do you wish I repeat the 32C example? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjore happened much after the Pandharpur temple, what is the big deal about a child who does not wear clothes, the Pandharpur image is of an adult. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

  • "Mandir Pravesh" is an WP:UNDUE IMO. About the "untouchable"(Bahujan) devotees, there is material written in the article. "Vithoba faith, which accepted women, Shudras and outcaste "untouchables", something forbidden in classical brahminical Hinduism." "Not only women, like Janabai, but also a wide variety of people from different castes and backgrounds wrote abhangas in praise of Vithoba: Visoba Khechara (who was an orthodox Shaiva and teacher of Namdev), Sena the barber, Narhari the goldsmith, Savata the gardener, Gora the potter, Kanhopatra the dancing girl, Chokhamela the "untouchable" Mahar, and even the Muslim Sheikh Muhammad (1560–1650)" "Other legends describe Vithoba coming to the rescue of his devotees in the form of a commoner, an outcast Mahar "untouchable" or a Brahmin beggar." Although Chokhamela's story can be added in legend part like Sena Nhavis is covered
  • Temple of Jerusalem is the article about the temple, I repeat: Vithoba temple, Pandharpur is about the temple, this is about the deity, his legends, his worship, his historical development, his cults (sects), his temples, apart from his main temple and central image. Put desecration in the history section of Vithoba temple, Pandharpur, with WP:RS of course. It needs to be there.
  • "the Pandharpur image is of an adult." This contradicts the references used in the article, the article (the Mokashi book, Zelliot) calls him a "young boy", others "the five-year-old Bala Krishna (infant Krishna)".--Redtigerxyz Talk 09:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not have lines like, The worship of Vithoba withstood the asaault, desecration and destruction of his principle shrine at Pandharpur, at the hands of Muslim invaders many times over. His temple at Pandharpur was selected for Mandir Pravesh for the Dalits, Sane Guruji staged a fast to death for the same. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The worship of Vithoba withstood the asaault, desecration and destruction of his principle shrine at Pandharpur, at the hands of Muslim invaders many times over.": Since "the (Hampi) temple is believed to have housed the central image from Pandharpur, which the Vijayanagara king Krishnadevaraya took.... to save the image from plunder by Muslim invaders.", may be without the Pandharpur the central image of Vithoba and his worship would still have survived. The Somnath temple was plundered so many times, even the central icon was destroyed, still it was rebuilt and still stands today and worship continues
  • "His temple at Pandharpur was selected for Mandir Pravesh for the Dalits, Sane Guruji staged a fast to death for the same." This is about the temple. Vithoba in no text is said to have disallowed Dalit entry, he is said to be "the God of the subaltern", the saviour of Chokhamela. The temple authorities, Badva and Utpats were (are) in control of the temple and restricted entry. The Mandir Pravesh is best suited in the temple article. A section is already devoted to the event in that article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monotheist, non-ritualistic not factual

[edit]

On what do you base the invention that Varkaris are monotheist or non-ritualistic? Don't take the citation tag off before you cite the citation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not need to add citations in the lead, for ex, you can find information on monotheism here (which is present in the references):
  • Sand, Erick Reenberg (1990). "The Legend of Puṇḍarīka: The Founder of Pandharpur". In Bakker, Hans (ed.). The History of Sacred Places in India as Reflected in Traditional Literature. Leiden: E. J. Brill. pp. 33–61. ISBN 9004093184. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

--Nvineeth (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that leads do not need citations, as they are a summary of what can be found in the article. I put the [citation needed] as a polite way of saying take this off.

Dyneshwari, is the Varkari's most favoured scripture, Parayan पारायण or reading of the Dyneshwari over and over, is an important part of Varkari worship, the Dyneshwari has over 9000 verses, it begins with the invocation,

ॐ नमो जी आद्या| वेद प्रतिपाद्या| जय जय स्वसंवेद्या| आत्मरूपा ||१|| देवा तूंचि गणेशु| सकलार्थमतिप्रकाशु| म्हणे निवृत्तिदासु| अवधारिजो जी ||२||

Which means, Obeisance to the Supreme Soul who is in the form of AUM and whom only the Vedas can describe. My obeisance to you who is the Self and can only be experienced. Oh God, you are the Ganesha, who enables everybody's intellect to understand everything. Thus says this disciple of Shri Nivruttinath. (Not a very good verbatim transliteration, but the best I could find.)

The Dyneshwari is a text which admits Veda Pramanya, and Pramanya of the Shastra and the Puranas, how does that make the Varkari who follow the Dyneshwari momotheists? The reference is obviously wrong. Same goes for rituals, the Vari is one ritual, the Kirtans and Pravachans are full of rituals, one very interesting one is the काल्याचे कीर्तन, (kalaya che Kirtan), a little like the Dahi handi ritual, but the pot is strung on a pole at about 10'-12' is cracked with a stick. The pooja of Vitthal is a ritual. Please take it off. Varkaris do not live on the moon, they live all around/with me/us, Varkari's are as monotheist or non-ritualistic as any other average Hindu. Please change the inaccurate description. It is like writing blondes have a tail, just because a scholarly reference says so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC) IMO egalitarian is a better description, supported by what follows so I am going ahead with it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The religious historian R.C. Dhere, winner of the Sahitya Akademi Award for his book Sri Vitthal: Ek Mahasamanvaya, opines that Vithoba worship may be even older—"Vedic or pre-Vedic", hence pre-dating the worship of Krishna should be rewritten as

Vithoba worship may be even older -"Vedic" or "Pre-vedic", hence pre-dating the worship of Krishna

with the story about Dhere a part of the foot notes, that will make the article easier to wade through. There are many more such instancesYogesh Khandke (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Raeside and Sand have clearly said Vakaris are monotheists and non-ritualistic, the references are available. The "monotheistic" may be used in the wider sense that the faith is centered on ONE god, namely Vithoba. Surely , Varkaris are egalitarian, but there are too many adjectives in the lead. Vaishnavism is also sometimes described as monotheistic (centered on Vishnu).
  • In Hinduism related scholarship, the "ritual" term is used for Brahmanical pooja, accompanied with mantras etc. Varkaris do not use Sanskrit mantras or Brahmanical methods of worship. Kirtan, Vari, Dahi Handi are customs, practices
  • "Vithoba worship may be even older -"Vedic" or "Pre-vedic", hence pre-dating the worship of Krishna", but according to whom? Since this a theory or NOT a self-asserting fact (history), the originator of the theory and why he is notable needs to be acknowledged. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether why I or you should believe Raeside and Sand or our eyes and good sense, this very article says that Vithoba has Shankar sitting on his head, why don't you comment of the quotation from Dyneshwari १ अध्याय I have given. Let us see, custom is पद्धति ritual is कर्मकान्ड, you are playing on words, but let us leave that aside.Do not Varkari do the hindu कर्मकान्ड related to birth, marriage, death and after death. That any other Hindu does, पाचवी, अग्निप्रदक्षिणा, दहावे, बारावे, तेरावे, श्राद्ध, पितृपक्ष? They do. Varkaris are like any other Hindu. Is there a Varkari tenent like there is no god but Vitthal and Kundalik is his prophet, like tawhid, it is wrong to call them monotheist, please change it. Keep it if you wish WP to be infactual and hearsay or quoting scholars like the wise man on the camel.

Actually Pooja historically was a non-Vedic ritual, the Brahman mode of worship was the यज्ञ, pooja is a non-vedic practice, please check this out. Vedic dharma I assume that you call this Brahman worship, was not about idols. Hindu religion is about Vedic (or brahman) and non-vedic practice, Krishna did not begin as a vedic god, that is why he fought against Indra, which gave him the title Govardhandhari, perhaps later he was made a avatar like Buddha. Hindu dharma today is an amalgamation of many practices and its syncretic nature. Please change and make this FA better, drop egaliterian too if you wish. One example of a Brahman ritual is संध्या, pooja is a non-Brahman ritual, so a Brahman Pooja is like Jain Quarbani an oxymoron, I am writing this assuming you wish to differentiate Vedic and non-Vedic practices calling them Brahman and non-Brahman, today Brahmans practice non-Brahman rituals like pooja and non-Brahmins practice Brahman rituals, such as marriages are to this day scantified by being performed in front of the holy fire. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Dhere et al, yes there have to be atributions to statements, but please take to the footnotes or the references. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I you correctly pointed "कर्मकान्ड" is ritual, when the scholars talk about the sect being non-ritualistic, it implies they do not practise rituals as part of worship/devotion to Vithoba, that is what makes them Varkari, a subset of Hindu. Varkaris are like any other Hindu in most aspects, but NOT in pooja. Varkaris do not use कर्मकान्ड, perform a ritual pooja at Pandharpur, they just take darshan. They use japa, to remember Vithoba, not कर्मकान्ड
  • [12] The Bhandarkar book also talks Tukaram as monotheist in the same sense as used by Raeside and Sand. [13] This book calls Vaishnavism as "pantheistic monotheism", an apparant paradox, but same applies to Varkaris, monotheism is used in the sense: centered on ONE GOD (VITHOBA), though there exists a panthenon: Rukmini, Shiva, Ganesha etc. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a web

[edit]

Pantheism is a correct description of Varkaris and Hindus, you are spinning a web of words, Vithoba is a Swarup of Krishna who is an avatar of Vishnu, who himself is a part of the Trimurti, and has a consort Laxmi, ... and this goes on, mono is one, not even two. Your argument is bad, you add there is a pantheon, a monotheist sect having a pantheon?

Varkaris have darshan, and if the Badvas don't push them out they do everything that is done in any other Hindu gabhara, smear bukka, light incense sticks, lamps, etc., they are even not a sect, in the sense that they are neither endogamous nor exogamous, a person can be a Varkari, his wife need not be one, etc., do not confuse Vaishnava with Varkari.

Pantheistic monotheism is not a paradox, it means there is one God, (monotheism), and every thing is his manifestation (pantheism).

If Bhandarkar, or Whatshisname wrote that Varkaris are monotheist and non-ritualistic they were wrong and the great Pirs forgot to correct them.

If you want fiction as a part of the article go ahead, I am not going to play the edit game, The article includes rumour and hearsay regardless of so many he said and she said that are scattered all around that one trips over them. This FA is an example that Wikipedia is poor quality, no wonder people laugh when some one quotes Wikipedia.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comments, perhaps you may see that monotheism and non-ritualism is supported by reliable sources. Its OK if people laugh, because we cannot satisfy everybody, but what other editors can do is ignore incivility. --Nvineeth (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am quoting a fact, I was laughed at, I have an email to prove that, the writer said that even a school project doesnot allow wikipedia to be quoted, so don't support your argument by quoting from Wikipedia, (and it was just a casual exchange about blasphemy laws in the US). . One of your sources Crook above wrote a book called "The Binding of a God: A Study of the Basis of Idolatry", (wiki definition)

Idolatry is usually defined as worship of any cult image, idea, or object, as opposed to the worship of a monotheistic God. It is considered a major sin in the Abrahamic religions.

He has used a derogatory term to refer to the religious practices of a billion Hindus, but he is reliable sources, and I am incivility. Good. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also browbeating somebody using the incivility tag is also incivility. The relevant section quoted here is,
This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adout "Idolatry.........", "as opposed to the worship of a monotheistic God. It is considered a major sin in the Abrahamic religions", like the genitals part in this article, is TRUE (backed by WP:RS), we may or may not like it. See WP:Profanity. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed dab link Birla Mandir. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Yogesh Khandke, please present WP:RS to prove that "monotheistic, non-ritualistic" is false, so far I see none.

  • To end all controversy: Proposal: replacement of "non-ritualistic" with "non-Brahmanical"
    • Sand p. 34 "the more or less anti-ritualistic and anti-brahmanical attitudes of Varkari sampradaya.."
    • [14] Zelliot: "Varkari cult is rural and non-Brahman in character".
  • Remove monotheist from lead
  • Remove all adjextives from lead about the Varkaris--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yogesh Khandke, I am not "browbeating" ! I would quote this from WP:CIVILITY--"Participate in a respectful and considerate way." and "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." Yes I am aware that the few of the so called western scholars have presented a wrong picture of Hinduism, but if you see such problems in this article, pls go ahead and correct it and back it up with a WP:RS. There is no one stopping you from adding POVs related to pantheism etc., provided they come from a WP:RS. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what Redtigerxyz has to say about Idolatry, as I have demonstrated, it is difficult to put labels, contemporary Hindu practice is both Vedic-Brahman and other than Vedic, so we have pooja and homa making up the practice of Hindus. Perhaps the statement can be

The customs, rituals, and traditions, related to the worship of Vithoba by Varkaris does not involve Brahmans as intermediaries, expect when they go to His Pandharpur and other temples.

Wonder whether it makes sense. The clarification is Varkaris take the services of Brahmans in rituals related to their daily life, the Vithoba temple too has Brahman priests, but the other Varkari customs, traditions and rituals have no special place for Brahmans, Brahmans are not excluded from from being a Varkari, on the contrary many Maharajs ह. भ. प.s (Varkari preachers), have been Brahmans, but their Brahman identity dissolves as Varkaris in the limited context[Foot note 1] of being Varkaris. Another example like the Varkaris can be The Shree Samarth Aadhyatmic Seva Samiti, of Nana Dharmadhikari commonly refered by its members as नानांची बैठक.

Foot notes:

  1. ^ This means that a Brahman Varkari won't give his daughter to a Mahar Varkari, a Vani Varkari won't give his daughter to a Shimpi Varkari, etc. His caste is still there. To the best of my knowledge the Varkari movement has no instances of attempts of efforts or deeds that dismantle caste like the Veer Shaiva Basaveshwara who arranged marriage between children of former Shudra and Brahman. (They were murdered by the non-Veer Shaiva).

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The customs, rituals, and traditions, related to the worship of Vithoba by Varkaris do not involve Brahmans as intermediaries, expect when they go to His Pandharpur and other temples.", I am sceptical of this "except" claim, have you ever heard that Varkaris perform poojas with the help of the Badvas? Do you have WP:RS to support this. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We will have to check this out, actually generally in all Hindus, Brahmans are being involved to a lesser and lesser extent, perhaps there are not many who do bhikshuki to go around for everybody, for example, Ganapati and Gauri pujan in thousands of homes in Kokan, is done without Brahmans, many marriages I have attended in the talukas of Pune, of Marathas are solemised without the involvement of Brahmans. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked, Varkari do ahishekha etc. if they can afford it. The have to pay the Badave of Pandharpur for it. Will try to find WP:RS.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Varkaris may do that, but that does not all of them do, OR it is generally followed by Varkaris and we are not talking about just the worship in Pandharpur, which is the stronghold of the Badvas. We are talking about the worship of Vithoba, by Varkaris in general. The arguments (any the one I just gave about abhisheka) so far can be termed WP:original research. "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.". Please provide explicit references that challenge the monotheistic and non-ritualistic word. At this stage, I think I should revert to the original "non-Brahmanical" as Vari can termed as a ritual in general usage, though the scholarly "ritual" and rite applying to Brahmanical worship, may not be known in general. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worship and service of Vithoba as in the Gazettee

[edit]

There are Brahmans, rituals, Vedic hymns, there are many references to pilgrims, which may be read as Varkaris

Worship: The staff of priests and attendants in the great temple of Vithoba includes Badvas, pujaris or ministrants, benaris or hymnists, paricharaks or bathmen, haridas or singers, dingres or barbers, danges or mace-bearers, and divtes or lightmen. All are Deshasth Brahmans, but all do not follow the same Veda. Except the Badvas the rest are called sevadharis or the servants of the god and have hereditary rights of personal service. The pujaris or ministrants take the chief part in the worship of the god. They remove and put on ornaments, flowers, garlands and sandal paste, and wave lights in front of the god, and are present at all services and light-wavings. The benari or hymnist directs the worship and repeats hymns or mantras at different stages; he is present at the morning and night services but seldom appears at the evening light-waving. The paricharak or bathman brings in a large silver dish of water with which the ministrant washes the god. He also brings the lamp for waving at the evening and night services. The evening lamp called dhuparti or incense lamp contains thin cotton wicks in bundles soaked in clarified butter, camphor, frankincense sticks, and holy ashes for the sticks to stand in. The night light or shejarti holds only butter-soaked wicks and camphor. The bathman is also expected to hand the lighted torch at the early morning service known as the kakadarti or wick-waving. The haridas, or slave of Hari, sings a few verses generally five from which he gets his name of panchpadi. The verses are generally in honour of the god and are sung at the morning, evening and night services. At the morning and evening services the haridas stands outside the ante-chamber with cymbals and sings, and, after waving the evening light round the god, accompanies the bathman and the maceman round the temple, visiting the smaller deities and singing while the others wave the lights. During the night service he stands in the sixteen-pillared chamber on the slab known as the stage slab or rangshila and sings to the accompaniment of music. The dingre or barber at the early morning service holds a mirror in front of the god after he has been dressed and before the light has been waved. The dingre also spreads a strip of cloth or paulghadi on the way to the bed-chamber at the time of the night worship. The divte or torch-bearer holds a lighted torch or mashal when the last night ceremony is over. He stands with a lighted brass or silver torch to the left of the ante-chamber after the dingre has spread the cloth on the floor up to the bed-stead of the god. He goes with the god's litter when his sandals are carried in the torchlight procession thrice a year on the full-moon of Ashadha (June-July) and Kartika (October-November) and on Dasara night (September-October). The dange or mace-bearer stands with his silver or gold plated mace outside the ante-chamber at the morning, evening and night services. He accompanies the palanquin at the three-yearly torchlight processions. After the evening light-waving before Vithoba and the minor gods the mace-bearer goes out and serves holy ashes to pilgrims outside of the temple in the west part of the town, while the paricharak or bathman goes out and serves ashes and the holy-waved light among pilgrims in the east of the town.
Service: The ordinary service of the god takes place five times every day and night. The service is of two kinds, puja or worship in the early morning and arti or light-waving which is performed four times in the twenty-four hours. The temple work is done by the priests in turn. The Badvas as the chief priests were regarded as the managers and trustees of the temple. As they are the most numerous body, almost equal to the whole of the other priests and ministrants, they get the chief share of the offerings. Except during the three principal fairs when the month's proceeds are farmed, every night at twelve they put to auction and sell the right to the next day's offerings. Each of the four sections of the Badvas gets a day so that they follow one another in rotation and the sum bid for the right to the offerings goes to the section whose turn it is to officiate. Except in the case of paupers and disreputable persons who have to give security the right to the offerings is generally given to the highest bidder. The offering contractor or day-man or farming day-priest called divaskar comes to the temple at about three in the morning, bathed and dressed in a silk waist-cloth, carrying the key of the door of the four-pillared chamber. Before he opens the door the benari or hymnist as well as the pujari or ministrant and the paricharak or bathman are all present, bathed and dressed in silk. The day-man and the ministrant stand with folded hands and the day-man humbly begs the deity to awake. The day-man opens the door, and, removing the eatables which were placed overnight in the bed-chamber, locks the bed-chamber and offers the god butter and sugarcandy. The other priests or sevadharis, who according to their number serve by daily or monthly turns, all come in except the haridas or singer who stands in the four-pillared chamber. No unbathed pilgrim is allowed to enter the god-room. Then comes the kakadarti or waving the torch a white muslin roll three or four inches long. It is dipped in clarified butter, and is brought by a Badva and paid for by one of the pilgrims. It is handed to the paricharak or bath-man who gives it to the ministrant while all present sing aloud. The ministrant very slowly waves the torch in front of Vithoba from the head to the feet. Numbers come daily to see the god's face by the light of the torch as this is lucky, especially on the Hindu new year's day in March-April and on Dasara in September-October, when hundreds of people come. When the singing and waving are over, the day-priest hands the ministrant a silver cup with some fresh butter or loni and sugarcandy which the ministrant offers to the god and puts in his mouth. The ministrant again waves lighted wicks and camphor round the god but without singing. The ministrant takes off the last night's garlands and washes the feet of the god first with milk and then with water. Lighted frankincense sticks are waved in front of the god, fruit or naivedya is offered, and once more lights are waved and songs are sung. The benari or hymnist recites some Vedik hymns and all the priests throw flowers on the god and shout Jay Jay. The service proper or puja now begins. The paricharak or bath-man brings water in a silver dish and the ministrant unrobes the god, pours milk, then curds, then clarified butter, then honey, and then sugar, one after the other over the god, the hymnist reciting hymns and verses. While the god is naked a cloth is drawn across the door so that no outsider may see. While the clarified butter is being poured over the god a lump of butter and sugarcandy is put in his mouth. After the god has been rubbed with sugar he is washed all over with water. Before he was broken by the Shaiv enthusiast in 1873 the god was washed in warm water. Since the left leg was cemented cold water mixed with saffron has been used instead of hot. Besides the bath a stream of water is poured over Vithoba's head from a conch shell while the hymnists and others recite verses from the Purushasukta, a famous Vedik hymn. After his bath Vithoba is wiped dry and dressed in new clothes provided by the Badvas, the face is wiped and is made to shine with scented oil. A turban is bound round the god's head, sandal paste is rubbed on his brow, and flower garlands are thrown round his neck. The barber or dingre then holds a mirror in front of the god. The god's feet are washed and rubbed with sandal, burning frankincense sticks are waved, and sweets are offered. Then comes the second light-waving. In this waving called ekarti either a metal instrument is used at the upper end of which is a bowl with a lip on one side where thin cotton wicks soaked in clarified butter are laid and lighted and behind it a flat part where camphor is kept and lighted; or another metal incense burner called dhuparti, in which holy ashes from an agnihotri or fire-keeping Brahman support incense sticks. While the priests and pilgrims sing songs the ministrant holds a flat piece of wood on which the second burner is set, waves it, and then takes the first burner and waves it. The incense burner or dhuparti is handed to the dange or mace-bearer, and the lighted lamp or ekarti to the bath-man who holds a bell in his left hand. Then, along with the songster or haridas, the mace-bearer and the bath-man go round waving the incense and the light round all the smaller deities. This ends the three morning services, the two light-wavings and the worship or puja. The bath-men, singers and barber now leave and the Badva and ministrant stay changing their silk waist-cloths for linen ones. After the morning services, about three in the afternoon and a little earlier on holidays, comes the dressing or poshakh. The ministrant removes the old sandal mark, washes the face, and rubs fresh sandal-paste on the brow of the idol. He takes away the old clothes and puts on new ones applying scented oil to the face with an offering of food. On holidays costly ornaments are put on and the dress, the turban or crown, the waist-cloth and the shoulder-cloth, are all of thin plates of gold. After the god is dressed pilgrims come to take darshan or see him. The visitors keep coming till evening when a fresh dhuparti or incense-waving is held. The bath-man brings a ready filled incense burner and waving lamp and the Badva brings a copper dish with flowers, flower garlands, nosegays, sandal powder, rice, and a silver plate with food. The ministrant washes the feet of the idol with water brought by the Badva in a pot, the old sandal paste is removed, and fresh paste with rice and sandal oil is applied. Flower garlands are thrown round the neck and nosegays are stuck in the corners between the hips and hands. Then with songs, generally sung by the ministrants, burning frankincense and camphor lamps are waved, food is offered, hymns are repeated by all the priests present, and flowers are thrown over the god. The incense and light are carried and waved round the minor deities as in the morning. The bath-man takes the wick-lamp or ekarti and ashes in a cloth and goes round the east of the town putting ashes on pilgrims' brows and showing them the lamp. The mace-bearer takes ashes and serves them in the north and west of the town. The pilgrims give presents and this like other sources of revenue is farmed every year. On ordinary days oil-sellers pour a little oil in the lamp, some give a betelnut, some an almond, while on the elevenths or ekadashis almost every one to whom the light is shown gives a copper. The last daily ceremony is the sleep-lightwaving or shejarti about ten and on holidays at twelve. Almost all the officiating priests attend this waving. The barber or dingre sprinkles a little water on the floor between the throne and the bed-chamber door and sweeps it; the Badva comes, opens the bed-chamber door, arranges the bed clothes, lights a lamp, and sets near the bed a cup of boiled sweet milk, some sweets, and a spittoon. He also brings water to wash the god's feet. The barber, after sweeping the path, draws figures in white and coloured powders on the floor, and, from the throne to the bed-chamber, spreads an eighteen-inch broadcloth covered with a cow's and Krishna's foot-prints. The mace-bearer, barber, and hymnist stand in the ante-chamber, the hymnist offers a Sanskrit prayer and the ministrant washes the god's feet. Before the ministrant undresses the god the hymnist from the ante-chamber waves a wick light or ekarti brought by the bath-man. The ministrant undresses the god, rubs sandal paste and rice on his brow, puts on freshly washed clothes and folds a fresh turban, throws garlands round his neck and puts a nosegay in his hands, with songs waves the wick-lamp and the incense stick, and offers sweets. Hymns and verses are recited and flowers thrown on the god. Except the two Badvas all the priests leave the room. The Badvas wave five lights one after another round the god singing songs. The day-priest or farmer washes the chamber, locks the door of the four-pillared chamber, and retires. Thus end the day's services and the one-day farm of the day-man. No ornaments are kept in the temple. All are in charge of Badvas who are responsible for them.

The god's special days are Wednesday and Saturday, unless they happen to be no-moon or twelfth days or the ominous conjunctions vyatipat or vaidhriti. On these days after the early morning disrobing and before the five-nectar bath, the god is washed with scented oil, sweet scented powder or argaja, and milk. Another special day is the eleventh or ekadashi on which all Vithoba's devotees fast. On lunar elevenths the daily service is as usual except that the night sweets have been cooked without water and that a wake is kept all night by the god who does not go to his bed-room, and till four in the morning the day farmer and the ministrant watch at the door of the four-pillared room. During the two large June-July and October-November fairs except the proper worship or puja in the mornings all these daily services are stopped and the bed-chamber remains closed. The god is supposed to be fatigued, and on the wash-worship or prakshal-puja day, which falls about ten days after these great fair days, most elaborate anointing and sugar-rubbing are required to soothe the weary god. The articles of food used by pilgrims on fast days are sweets, milk, groundnuts and mashed dates. Some eat nothing at all, while others take bread, rice and vegetables, which are baked before being mixed with water.

The Gazetteer department Solapur Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The essay is about the Pandharpur temple, which is where the ritual worship of Vithoba is performed. "Two distinct traditions revolve around the worship of Vithoba in Maharashtra: ritual worship inside the temple by the Brahmin priests of the Badva family; and spiritual worship by the Varkaris". Yes there will be Brahmans and hymns. No doubts. " pilgrims, which may be read as Varkaris" , NOT all pilgrims are Varkaris. I am not a Varkari, still I habve visited the temple. The Kannada and Telugu speaking crowd are not Varkaris. NOT all Maharashtrians are Varkari[citation needed]. The article explicitly DOES NOT state that Varkaris perform ritual pujas using Vedic hymns OR use Brahmans for puja. See WP:OR reply in above section. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


pilgrims = varkari + non-varkari pilgrims

[edit]

The article has no mention of Varkari, if you go to the original article and read it entirely there is no mention of Varkari, the style of the article is such that an effort is made to use English for very specific Marathi words too, such as 11th day for Ekadashi, frankincense for dhup, clarified butter for toop, there is no mention of Varkari or their separate style of worship, so it can be safely assumed that pilgrims mean Varkari for the purpose of this article, without doubt pilgrims may also mean those who are not Varkari, so pilgrims = varkari + non-varkari pilgrims. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could not information related to frankincense (dhup) and clarified butter (toop) in the article. Regarding Ekadashi, this is explained as the 11th day in the lead (and we need to do this because there are readers from non-Hindu backgrounds) and the same word has been uniformly in the main body of the article. Regarding Varkari, there is a complete section, Vithoba#Varkari_sect. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article referred to the article in the Gazette, not our article. Sorry for sounding ambiguous. 117.195.17.89 (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article = essay about Pandharpur temple quoted from Gazette, please read my post and redtigerxyz's comments. Sorry I should have used part quoted from the Gazettee or Pandharpur essay, instead of article. All my fault. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redtigerxyz is right, the Pandharpur essay does not explicitly mention Pilgrims, but we can assume pilgrims = Varkaris because,
  1. The Pandharpur essay has a propensity for the use of English words for other Marathi words too as explained above.
  2. The Pandharpur essay explicitly does not mention that Varkaris have separate rituals or that some rituals are performed or not performed by Varkaris.
  3. Even in the entire Pandharpur essay in the original, which is long, no mention the Varkari is found.
  4. So we can safely assume that the author of the essay does not find exclusive Varkari practice, has not sought to differentiate between different practices, perhaps as the vast majority has similar practices, we can safely assume that the practices mentioned are representative, we can therefore assume that the practices of the pilgrims described are the practices of the Varkaris, as Varkaris are the predominant part of pilgrims (generically used includes Varkaris and non-Varkaris), the non-Varkari pilgrims may have practices and ritual but they have not been explicitly described in the Pandharpur article.

So even though the Pandharpur essay does not mention Varkari, considering the above we may safely interprete without fear of being too adventurous that Pilgrims mean Varkaris. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel the assumptions above is too much of reading between the lines. Other scholars like Engblom, Philip C. in Mokashi (1987) pp. 7–10, 15 along with (Mokashi p. 8) Raeside, (Mokashi p. 9) Deleury have explicitly emphasised the difference between the Varkari worship and ritual worship of the Badvas. They even stress the rituals of the temple have to be restricted during the Varis. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I request Yogesh Khandke, to provide explicit references challeging the words "monotheist, non-ritualistic and non-Brahmanical". Also, as I have said earlier I would prefer non-Brahmanical over non-ritualistic, reasons: 1. the general meanng of ritual which may apply to the Vari as Yogesh Khandke pointed out 2. The Brahmanical rituals not followed by Varkaris, Vari can be considered as a non-Brahmanical ritual as per reason 1. Explicit WP:RS references to non-Brahman OR non-Brahmanical nature of varkari worship are given in the article and in the above discussions.--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Pandharpur essay, the word pilgrim is used to denote Varkari, as it is the translation of the word Var-kari one who goes on a vari or a pilgrimage. It is explicit enough. There is no reading between the lines or assuming things, instead of using Marathi the author of the Pandharpur essay has used English, like he has used English words for toop, or Ekadashi, or Dhoop and quite a few other instances.

It is not a vague assumption it is like the proof of a theorm. Like

  1. sin2φ + cos2φ = 1,
  2. tanφ = sinφ/cosφ
  3. So dividing LHS and RHS by cos2φ
  4. So we have tan2φ + 1 = cosec2φ

If we have WP:RS for 1 and 2 we can use something like 3 to arrive at 4, that is not reading between the lines it is explicit enough, anything more would earn a X rating. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"instead of using Marathi the author of the Pandharpur essay has used English" Does he say that, that's an assumption. That is not math. I request explicit references. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let us put it this way

[edit]

Do you have a wp:rs that says Varkaris use the self designation non-brahman, or if you do not have one and if you still wish and think they need an additional qualifier, perhaps the text could go like this western scholars and their Indian Uncle Tom's call them non -brahman Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Varkari Panth (Pilgrim Path) or Varkari Sampradaya (Pilgrim Tradition) is one of the most important Vaishnava sects in India.[54] It is a monotheistic, bhakti sect, focused on the worship of Vithoba and based on traditional Bhagavata dharma.[39] The sect is a "Shaiva-Vaishnava synthesis" and "nominal Vaishnavism, containing a free mix of other religions".[13] It is believed to have originated in Karnataka and migrated to Maharashtra. This last theory is based on a reference to Vithoba as "Kannada" (belonging to Karnataka) in the work of the first of the poet-saints, Dnyaneshwar. However, this word can also be interpreted as "difficult to understand".[44] Varkaris and scholars who believe Pundalik to have been a historical figure also consider him to be founder of the cult of Vithoba. This is evidenced by the liturgical call—Pundalikavarada Hari Vitthala!—which means "O Hari Vitthala (Vithoba), who has given a boon to Pundalik!"[55] However, according to Zelliot, the sect was founded by Dnyaneshwar (also spelled Jnaneshwar), who was a Brahmin poet and philosopher and flourished during the period 1275–1296.[56] Varkaris also give him credit with the saying—Dnyanadev rachila paya—which means "Dnyaneshwar laid the foundation stone".[57]

Above is the sub-section that deals with Varkaris, make up your mind is it

  1. is one of the most important Vaishnava sects in India
  2. It is a monotheistic, bhakti sect, focused on the worship of Vithoba
  3. based on traditional Bhagavata dharma.
  4. The sect is a "Shaiva-Vaishnava synthesis"
  5. "nominal Vaishnavism, containing a free mix of other religions".

It is like saying the thing is like a mammal but it lays eggs, gives milk to its young ones but does not have a vertebral column, has hair but is cold blooded. Looks like an encounter of the blind men of Hindoostan with an elephant. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R G Bhandarkar, Dr. Tilak are NOT "western scholars". Why not present WP:RS from Indian scholars, if you do not believe in western scholars. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

western scholars and their Indian Uncle Tom's call them non -brahman Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There must be scholars who are NOT their Indian Uncle Tom's call, who say what you are saying. The whole scholar community can not be against your claims, unless they are baseless. So far no explicit WP:RS are presented so far (interpretation of primary sources was definitely OR). Returning "monotheistic, non-Brahmanical" to the lead. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fiction masquerading as encyclopedic content. There is a story of a German driver who ignored a dead end sign and drove off a cliff because his GPS showed that there was a road there. We need to use our commonsense and keep updating whatever information we receive real-time or end up driving off a cliff that is what this FA is. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have I missed something?
Vithoba is served by Brahmins at his temple with several pujas each day.
Do these pujas come from Vakari traditions or from Brahminic traditions that precede them, even Vedic traditions, Vaishnava or even Shaiva?
The poet-saints were not Brahmins were they? The Vakari follow a lay (English) tradition, not a priestly/Brahminic tradition, don't they?
Perhaps the Badva are brahminic, they are Brahmins after all. But in what sense, dear Yogesh, are you asking us to understand the Vakari and the bhakti traditions of their poet-saints as "brahminic". It may be a nice thought to "elevate" or formalise Vakari tradition to be in some sense "brahminic", but isn't it part of their songs of joy that all may worship their Lord, whether Brahmin or not Brahmin? Again, I cannot follow in what sense you mean to suggest Vakari are brahminic.
Friend Yogesh, do we not honour the Vakari and see their panth from their own perspective as authentic bhakti, authorized by Vithoba himself and mediated by the poet-saints rather than by the Brahmins, yet without excluding these Brahmins from their own legitimate traditions of puja?
If, friend Yogesh, there is any oversight in our attempt at faithful presentation of the relevant traditions, we will rush to correct it. But you are truly with friends here, albeit not Vakari themselves. We are students, not teachers. Peace. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let us put it this way II

[edit]
  1. Puja is not a brahman (vedic) practice, the vedic religion was about fire worship or yagna.
  2. It is wrong to put Hindu practices into categories and Varkaris are no exception. Unless you define brahmanic traditions which is quite difficult it would be difficult to call someone brahmanic or otherwise.
  3. Varkaris by no stretch of imagination can be called monotheists, pantheists is a better description.
  4. The argument is not about slander or honour, it is about understanding of the subject. There are no compartments in Hinduism, Varkari is not one, even if it is imagined as so, it is not exclusive or water tight.
  5. Dyneshwar (the one who is credited to have laid the foundation of the Varkari Sampradaya) and Eknath the two important poet-saints were brahmans.

The Vakari follow a lay (English) tradition, not a priestly/Brahminic tradition, don't they?

Pilgrims dance and sing hymns written in praise of God on the way to Pandharpur for that they did not need the service of a priest, villages too have congregations where non-brahman (and brahman) gurus hold discourses, that is the limit of the lay-ness, the lay tradition ends at the threshold of the Pandharpur temple, inside the Badava's take over. To this day many groups of pilgrims to Pandharpur are based on caste, the Varkari movement did nothing to change the caste hierarchy or challenge the priests, it would be wrong to say that there were no intermediaries between the Varkari and Vithoba, the Varkari is initiated into the Sampradaya by a Guru. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these excellent points. Here are some questions.
1. Are brahmins usually present at puja? Are vedic texts ever recited during puja? Who by? When did people start puja, who taught them? I thought the Rgveda started by invoking Agni, but there are prayers to other gods, and there are other vedas. Would it be fair to say that yajña is vedic and brahminic? But is it fair to say that the only brahminic roles are vedic roles, and the only vedic traditions are yajña? If braminic practices are vedic practices, and yajña, then vari is not brahminic is it? So you agree that the article is correct about vari not being brahminic? Or you agree that brahminic includes more than yajña?
2. People, especially academics, often make mistakes when they try to hard to put things into simple categories. With the very many overlapping Hindu traditions, Wikipedia is in grave danger of oversimplifying in many areas, Hinduism especially. I'm not an expert on the subject, like you are, but I can see your point. But although oversimplified categories can be worse than saying nothing, there are still things that can be said. Like your own observation that yajña is well-known to be vedic. I would like to add here, that I'm curious as to how various Shaiva and Vaishnava traditions account for Agni (and Indra and Brahma for that matter). I am very out of date, the little I have read about Hinduism has been in the course of learning some basic classical Sanskrit, even Prakrits are too modern for me! ;)
3. Thank you for your, I imagine "ball-park only", categorization of the Vakari Panth as pantheistic. Yes, if true (and I'm sure you know what you're talking about), it would be notable. We would still need to work out if it was animistic or polytheistic pantheism, or more monotheistic. It is possible to believe the universe itself is the unique divine spiritual being, or that a unique all-powerful being "permeates" or "indwells" the universe (panentheism). Perhaps one of these describes the views of many or most who would also call themselves Vakari (you know better than me), but the poet-saints seem to sing a different story. Vithoba is the only true god, who is also known in other avatars, normally categorised within Vaishnavism as a standard ten, often harmonised by identifying Vithoba with the Buddha. All we need is sources describing the pantheism of the Vakari, or at least of some of them. Perhaps that is appropriate in this article, or perhaps in the Vakari article.
4. I think you are saying "no sweeping untidy or uncomfortable details aside", and of course I agree with you. We must report without fear or favour.
5. Sure, the Sampradaya appears not to discriminate against Brahmins. ;)

Your lovely flowing prose and logically constructed case that the Panth is not all sugar and spice equality of access to God is clear and believable. Perhaps you would grant that some of the early Sants were idealistic, and didn't have in mind some aspects of current practices. If we can find sources for both views, that would help round things out.

If you will forgive me being a little cheeky, although I hear criticisms of western culture at various points in what you say (and keep it up, I've far more criticisms of western culture than you do, lol), finding the "dark side" of people and their traditions, my English mother taught me, is what those uncivilized Americans like to do—they just love circulating gossip. It didn't occur to her that it was precisely what she was doing herself by speaking in such a way! ;) Now, without really wanting to "categorize" cultures in such ways, western or Indian, there is still something I find attractive about the habit some "conservative" types of Indian people demonstrate, of a kind of politeness that "lets sleeping dogs lie". Perhaps this is old fashioned, perhaps it is Uncle Tom stuff, perhaps it's got nothing to do with culture and everything to do with personality. Where am I going with this? Well, it's good to have you around Yogesh, because you're not shy about using your extensive knowledge and penetrating reasoning to wake us all up and make sure our i-s are dotted and t-s crossed.

I'm a clumsy oaf who knows next to nothing about India or Hinduism but is here to learn more. Teach me all you like (though sometimes I can be a difficult student). Tiger's a special kind of man though. He's very diligent (ruthlessly so, it's almost a weakness!), and he's very polite. Please be gentle with him Yogesh! Lol, he should punch me for saying that, he's plenty able to look after himself.

I'm going to go back through these pages of discussion and see if I can help at any particular points. But Yogesh, I think you're almost wasted at this page, you know so much and there are so many pages with far less material than this one. Still, you're doing a better job of giving detailed criticism of the page than some of the rest of us did, so it's good for us to take advantage of that while you're around. ;) Can I ask though, what would I have to do to pursuade you to write an article for us? Alastair Haines (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the lay tradition ends at the threshold of the Pandharpur temple, inside the Badava's take over." All those so-called "untouchables" in the Varkari-faith including Chokhamela, who were kept away from Vithoba's chief temple at Pandharpur by the Badvas, could not been kept away from Vithoba, though there is no intermediary. "There are no compartments in Hinduism" sadly there are Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta; Brahmin and non-Brahmin divisions. About Dnyaneshwar, remember: Dnyaneshwar and his siblings were thrown out from Brahmin society at an early age. He stand was the Gita should not reserved to the Brahmins so he translated into Marathi and even made a donkey buffalo recite the forbidden mantras. Varkaris still do not like the portrayal of Vithoba as a Brahmanical deity. About a half yr along, I read in the Marathi magazine "Lokaprabha": There was out rage in the Varkaris after a photo of Vithoba wearing the chacteristic Brahmin Puneri topi (hat) was published by the Pandharpur temple. Anyway, this is NOT a debate forum so I would not post any comments henceforth to the discussion UNLESS RS ARE PRESENTED. It is futile presenting original research. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tiger for what you have posted here. You describe verifiable matters relevant to the questions raised. You point one such as me who knows little towards the important things that are discussed in reliable sources.
What is very helpful for me about your post is that you confirm for me that I had correctly understood the article—the Vakari Sampradaya does indeed include an ideal of removing some traditional "barriers" to worshipping God. There may be other points of view, but I'm sure we can find additional reliable sources to address this particular question since it has come up.
Some of this issue seems more relevant to Vakari than Vithoba. But we can find more sources first and then place them in whatever articles could use them second.
Anyway, you have pointed out the main thing, it is not our editorial opinions that matter in the end, it is the opinions of sources. I'll have a little look around, I'm pretty sure sources already in the article address some of our current questions in a clear manner. I'll learn more as I retrace your footsteps once again, Tiger. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't "he" be "He"?

[edit]

That style is used with other deities (eg: the Christian god). So why not here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this question. :)
Standard practice in theological publication in English has been to drop capitalization of pronouns refering to God, for some time. This is not a matter of disbelief or disrespect, it is purely stylistic. English in general (and American English in particular) has tended away from "overuse" of capitals. It is has side benefits: children find lower case easier than upper case; second language English readers often have native scripts that do not have capitals, and find English capitals awkward.
I believe in God, but I do not consider it disrespectful to him to drop capitals from pronouns refering to him, rather, it probably makes it easier for people to read about him. ;)
I hope that is a helpful response, to your helpful question. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though He is used for God, it is used to refer the monotheistic God of Islam, Chiristianity etc. "In the English language, the capitalization continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and "gods" in polytheism", as the case in general Hinduism. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As always quick with the facts. But what is the interpretation? But why are non-Abrahamic gods not capitalised? Because only the Christian god is a God and all other heathen gods are dogs, got it? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are both right. Tiger correctly notes that the English convention for the name, "God", is to capitalize it, partly to reflect that it is used as a name, rather than a noun. Where there is more than one god, they usually have well-known names: Zeus, Thor, Venus, Inanna, Xochiquetzal, Agni, Indra. These are also capitalized, I can see no privelege being granted here. If anything, Allah and Yahweh suffer by being called, indescriminately, merely "God", rather than by the personal names they give themselves in the scriptures of their religions.
In his third lecture on Naming and Necessity (29 January 1970), Saul Kripke explained how "terms for natural kinds are much closer to proper names than is commonly supposed." (This has been much quoted.) He recounts some philosophical observations, starting with John Stuart Mill. Although Kripke doesn't cover it explicitly, the natural kind, "god", is very close to the proper name "God".
John Mathieson Anderson, The Grammar of Names, (Oxford University Press, 2007) claims to be "the first systematic account of the syntax and semantics of names". It's a very interesting subject if you like that sort of thing. Should we use a capital for "people say that James Bond's middle name is Danger"? Or is it better in lower case? "Sometimes I think that trouble must be my middle name." Is it "here comes trouble" or "here comes Trouble"? Eventually I'll get around to reading how Anderson would answer those questions.
I agree with you Yogesh that the English language reflects a world-view based on the Abrahamic religions, the Oxford English Dictionary says so, and so do thousands of other books. But this is changing as language reflects contemporary thought (language doesn't shape thought, according to Cognitive Science). Few English speaking people have any time for the Abrahamic religions any more, and why should they? Yahweh and Allah are middle eastern gods, not European ones.
But I think we are expanding this discussion beyond the thread starter's question about pronouns. Perhaps it would help to note that even the old King James Version of the Bible refers to God as "he" and "you", with lower case, but recent official English versions of the Guru Granth consistently use upper case pronouns to refer to God. This article uses standard contemporary English style—a captial for Vithoba, but lower case for pronouns. I suspect the next English edition of the Guru Granth may do the same. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Many feel that the Christian religion has more to do with the Council of Nicaea and Constantine I than with the Middle Eastern Yeshu, which makes it very much European.
  2. Hindu writing in English should be the standard that should be followed in the context of Hindu Gods. The purpose of capitalisation is deference. Why not check for example whether Swami Chinmayananda capitalises 'g' when writing about Krishna etc., or ISKON.
  3. Christians and others of the Abrahamic faiths are bound to come up with one are the other argument in defence of their practise of not capitalising 'g' when referring to the heathen gods. Please check herewhen gods and goddess are referred to in general the 'g' is not capitalised, but when used as a prefix the 'g' is capitalised, also pronouns are capitalised too. This is not about personal beliefs but about racism. Vithoba is a proper noun and has to be capitalised regardless of whether is is a god's name or a dog's name, I don't see any obligation in being capitalised.

In his third lecture on Naming and Necessity (29 January 1970), Saul Kripke explained how "terms for natural kinds are much closer to proper names than is commonly supposed." (This has been much quoted.) He recounts some philosophical observations, starting with John Stuart Mill. Although Kripke doesn't cover it explicitly, the natural kind, "god", is very close to the proper name "God".

I didn't quite understand the above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Image

[edit]

The infobox image File:Vithoba Gutenberg.jpg , has recently been replaced by File:Syayambhuvithoba.jpg . My reversion to the long-standing version was undone by User:Yogesh Khandke with edit-summary, "Poor is very subjective, does it mean our coterie does not like it?". Disregarding the incivility and assumption of bad-faith in the edit-summary, here are the reasons I think that the File:Syayambhuvithoba.jpg is a poor choice:

  • The image "scanned image of a picture from" a person's family altar, by an unknown artist, and of no historical importance or notability.
  • It is of very poor quality with creases, stains, and tears.

None of the images in this article, are of great quality, and I think finding better (i.e., greater significance and higher image quality) pictures is worthwhile. However the new image replacement is no improvement at all over pre-existing choice, which was the infobox image when this article was promoted to FA. Abecedare (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new image is an improvement because, this discussion page carries a request that a image of the Pandharpur Vithoba, the Swayambhu Shree Pandurang be provided, please see top of the page. The image provided is of a picture that is old which is why it is creased and stained, though I can see no tears, are they streaming down Vithoba's face? That would be a miracle. It is old, that is why there hopefully are no copyright issues that is the tradeoff. I am not assuming bad faith, I see evidence, the size of the stone idol image is 407 x 720 pix., 46 kb, of the scanned image is 452 x 600 pix, and 427 kb. Which one has a better resolution? Are not edits based on flimsy and false premises vandalism? Isn't resistance to improvement vandalism? If ten gang up against one guy, they get 30 reverts. Also accusations of incivility are themselves incivility see wp:whatitsaysonthisissue. Also featured articles are not the word of God, they are here to be improved. Get a better image of the Swayambhu Shree Pandurang, Pandharpur and away goes this one. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are all for better images for the article, but the one you keep adding is much worse. Wikipedia works by consensus, and consensus is against you so far. Your accusations of "gang(ing) up" and "flimsy and false premises" is showing extreme bad faith and incivility. Stop it. That approach isn't going to go anywhere except a block. Priyanath talk 20:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is a derivative work, so it is an improper license. (permission of author needed) Add proper date and author. Somebody in your family may know. "must be very old" is an assumption, NOT a fact. Old is a relative word - 40 years can be very old too, which is not enough for PD --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"featured articles are not the word of God, they are here to be improved." I completely agree that this FA needs better pics, but they should have proper licences. If this photo is found to have proper license, then too it is too poor quality with stains and creases to be the infobox image, but must be included in the article elsewhere (Iconography would be the best section).--Redtigerxyz Talk 09:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening editors with blocks is extreme incivility. I have given evidence (see above and below). What most editors do not understand that nothing on Wikipedia is anybody's personal property. Even the image, once on Commons, it is not mine, it is ours. I am not the one to make wild accusations, the reverts had one flimsy reason after the another. The picture is on Commons and if it holds there, it is good and can be used in any article. This is not the place to argue about copyright. Remember wrong tree. Second thing is that instead of complaining about the quality, simple image editing would get it rid of all the problems. No body is interested in that, reminds me of the story in which a dog is sitting on a pile of hay, he cannot eat it, does not let others eat it. I also think that there should be editors who can write good English and who understand meanings of different words, and do not have to depend on dictionaries, at least FAs should go through their filter, to prevent gaffes like the ones on this FA. Eg. Jain ascetics are not saints, saint is a very Christian concept, they are monks, there is the word gymnosophist, for those Jain monks who do not wear any clothes, such a monk is a digambar, if a=b in a dictionary, and b=c then a=c works well with mathematics but not with language, digambar is one who does not wear clothes, explicit porn is full frontal nudity, so is Sravanabelagola a porn image? Why does everything here look like hay. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most Sanskrit (Devanagari) dictionaries acknowledge digambar's meaning as naked. Yogesh, digambara = naked is explicit. Please go through through the dictionary meaning of digambar. (links above) It is a Sanskrit word, which is used in the Purana to describe Krishna-Vithoba. Sand p. 41 (reference for Skanda Purana legend) uses "naked (digambar)" to describe Vithoba-Krishna.
  • "Jain saints" is a terminology used by the reference. I have followed the same.
  • "The picture is on Commons and if it holds there, it is good and can be used in any article. This is not the place to argue about copyright. Remember wrong tree." The image is a derivative that is it is a scan someone else's work (drawing, not drawn by Yogesh (as acknowledged by him). The author permission is absolutely neccessary.
  • "Second thing is that instead of complaining about the quality, simple image editing would get it rid of all the problems." I had removed the stains of the photo before this comment (someone should have noticed), but could not remove the creases, may be a better scan is needed.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A nice cup of tea
Friends, I think Yogesh and Tiger are both right about digambar. As we look at this elephant, wearing the sky, Yogesh is accurately describing its trunk and Tiger accurately describing its ears.
Digambar is a rather beautiful metaphor (not a euphemism). It is not a matter of wearing nothing, it is a matter of wearing something higher. Does Surya need clothes? If the sky is enough clothing for the Sun, surely it is enough for a man of faith.
But English knows little of this. The best it can do is steal from Greek with something like gymnosophistry. Please forgive the poverty of my language to contain all that can be said in the Prakrit scriptures.
I'm sure Tiger would be the first to admit that there is much more associated with the word digambar as people use and understand it than there is in the humble English word naked. Yogesh has described much of that rather eloquently. However, I'm inclined to think that detail fits better at the digambar article than here, where a short simple word a poor, humble English-only reader can grasp is probably best.
I'm tempted to copy (and source) some of Yogesh' comments to the digambar article by way of enhancing it; but at this one, naked feels precise and to the point, just the right neutral and simple word.
If only the story of the elephant told a person how to stop the observers arguing with one another when they are all right! That's where ahimsa comes in isn't it? Anyone for a cup of cha? Alastair Haines (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best part is digambar is not an euphamism, though I do not agree about the anology with the blind men of Indoostan, I felt that perhaps saint was used in the original reference, but did not check up. I wonder whether there are any digambar images of any one except the tirthankar? I however do not understand this Prakrit Sanskrit divide. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 more ref[15] Digambara always implies naked, ,most dictionaries or authors do not stop at the literal meaning of sky-clad, they always give the meaning as naked, some like Sand and dictionary links given above, do not give the meaning as sky-clad and just state the meaning to be naked. The word digambar has more to it than just naked, it mostly is used to describe "naked mendicant"s like gods Shiva (a title, therefore, of Śiva in his naked asceticism) and Datta; "A Hindu sādhu who goes about naked, having left sexual identity and desire far behind". But explaining all this in this article is WP:UNDUE, incorporate in Digambar article, OR (BETTER) create something like Digambara (Hinduism) for explain the Hindu views on Digambara. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the saints part, Jain Digambara ascetics are venerated as saints (Sant) by Digambara community.--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the problem here is translation, isn't it. We all know what digambar, Sant and Tirthankar mean. We also all know what naked, saint and prophet (pro+phet=one who speaks out) or apostle (sent one) mean. But there's a big apples and organges problem. Sure an apple is round and a fruit and has seeds and skin, and likewise an apple. They match in some ways but not others. But squeezing words from one language into another is like squeezing ideas from one culture into those of another. And we're talking religious words here, full of all sorts of ideas.
Yogesh, you are full of skill in un-packing words. Tiger's rather good at packing them (mind you, he "cheats", sources show him how to do it).
You two seem like potential for a great team. I can't remember if there was a particular edit we're looking at here.
Perhaps the three of us would all agree that whether English-only readers like it or not, they are best off learning some Indic words if they really want to understand Indian things.
Isn't it great we have some important words used in this article ... and articles on some of the things those words represent!
In a funny kind of way, the English for digambar should actually be digambar! The word naked is just a standard gloss. The English for Brahmin is ... guess what! ... Brahmin. Languages can be very slow to learn. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tea, let us have it with biscuits. Gloss it is. More ever Stevenson on page 5,6 has written that despite the many failings and perversities of the Hindus, immodesty of their images was not one of them, this being the area of Buddhists and Jains, thus he speculates that the image could have those origins, Jains more likely. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Yogesh! Nice source. Jains more likely seems an honest reflection. And thanks for the biscuits!!! :)) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just tried out the Pandharpur image in the infobox, IMO it looks OK,but the creases on the feet are a little disturbing. Anyway maybe the image of the central image should be the top of the article.--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... III

[edit]

R it was not a donkey it was a he - buffalo. One need not be an expert to understand or atleast try to understand his surroundings. Puja is non-vedic, there were many vedic Gods, the vedic people did not build temples, their mode of worship was the yagna. Today's Hindu religious philosophy and practice is an amalgamation of various different orders. This includes the Varkaris. You cannot put Hindus and other Hindu orders in a box and put a label on it. If you must the box would read assorted..

I hope I am understanding you correctly (AH), By Ball Park only you mean the Varkari Panth or Sampradaya is flexible in character, yes it is like any other Hindu institution. R this is not about brahman or anti-brahman, the brahman are in a minority now in terms of influence, so they are at the receiving end of bigotry.

I will try to reply to all that you have written from 1 to 5 (AH) and the subsequent paragraph by R. Please give me some time.

You are right Hinduism is panentheist, it is also pantheist.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You understood me perfectly Yogesh, sorry I was less than perfectly clear. You really have got me interested in developing a clearer understanding of puja and its origins and what sorts of things it is appropriate to consider to be brahminic and what things not. They are important matters to become more clear about, and could lead to helpful expansion or refinement of other articles (as well as maybe this one). Alastair Haines (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, we need not continue this discussion any more till Yogesh Khandke presents RS to support his arguments/ views. Let some time pass so he can gather RS. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice Tiger. Yes, I'm busy with other things anyway. But I am looking forward to hearing from Yogesh. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the Vithoba Swayambhu image on Commons and pasted it here. Now tell me is He naked? Unless you think what is hanging from His belt is His Penis, may be I am not good at this, but I can see pleats of His dhotar also. Is His Penis hanging outside His garments?

Please dont go about vandalising before sorting this out. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this before Talk:Vithoba/Archive_1#Desecration_etc._continued. Description of other Hindu deities as digambara Datta. Photos:

  • Bhairava
    Bhairava
  • Ganesha
    Ganesha
  • Kali
    Kali
  • Bala Krishna
    Bala Krishna
  • Krishna
    Krishna

--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bring WP:RS to back your arguments, not WP:OR. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone is barking up the wrong tree here. This is not the place to discuss as to whether a image can stay or not, we have the Commons for that, and the image has not been deleted. Though one part of being digambar is giving up clothes, it does not mean anybody who is not wearing clothes, it is a philosophical statement just as nudist is, it is foolish to show images of Balkrishna (child Krishna) without clothes on as a Digambar image, that is a child with no clothes on. I think gymnosophist is a better translation for digambar.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tirthankar doesnot translate as saint, prophet could be a better translation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "digambar is giving up clothes, it does not mean anybody who is not wearing clothes" This is OR. I have given enough WP:RS dictionary entries to prove that digambar = naked.
  • "it is a philosophical statement just as nudist is" Prove it with RS
  • "it is foolish to show images of Balkrishna (child Krishna) without clothes on as a Digambar image, that is a child with no clothes on" You you mean to say Vyasa who wrote the Puranas is foolish because in the Puranas he calls Bala Krishna digambar.--Redtigerxyz Talk 08:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my impertinence but if Vyas called a child without clothes digambar, he really is foolish. Digambar is taking clothes off as an act of renunciation. I hope I do not have to eat my words. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

non-Brahmnical

[edit]

R the trouble is that words like non-Brahminical are meaningless, absurd and sinister and deceitful all at the same time. This is part of the White Christian, imperialist conspiracy in which White-A*s kissing coconuts (white inside, brown outside) collaborate. The conspiracy of divide and rule. Here is what V. D. Savarkar had the say about the term.

The use of the term ‘non-Brahmins’ is improper
The use of the term ‘non-Brahmins’ is improper. It means that on one side you have all non-Brahmins including Englishmen and Americans! (1924, Hindu samaj sanrakshak Savarkar or Savarkar as the defender of Hindu society, p. 69) (My source http://www.savarkar.org/en/social-reforms/abolition-caste-0)

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two white asses: studies (in press) have shown they prefer sugar to kisses.
Hmmm, food for thought. Nice quote and I feel the point.
Forgive me butting in, please, but in defence of the current phrasing in the article
"monotheistic, non-Brahmanical [sic] Varkari sect of Maharashtra"
"monotheistic" permits "non-Brahm-i-nical" to side with poms and yanks, but "Vakari sect of Maharashtra" would seem to me to exclude most UK or US passport holders.
I'm not denying there may be issues here, just venturing that I hope I'm not mistaken in reading "meaningless, absurd, sinister and deceitful" as rather artistic, colourful hyperbole rather than a personal criticism of the diligent editor who offered the text we are discussing. ;)
No offense meant, none taken I'm sure. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AH this a quote, you have to read it in the context, maybe not Americans and the English, but surely Bhikkus, Munis, Rabbis, Granthis, Mullahs and Christian priests are found in Maharashtra, can we put them in the same box as Varkaris? The editor does not own the term, he has just brought it here. He has fallen for the trap, it is not meant to be an artistic hyperbole though. Pardon the profanity, though the phrase is not mine it belongs to Richard Crasta. Some times such language gets the point across directly. I think I am taking this more seriously than anybody else. The white ass part belongs here --> Impressing the whites. Yogesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.66.121 (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you Yogesh. It is a serious issue and should be taken seriously. Actually, it's an issue Wikipedia cares about. Wikipedia is not "white", it is everyone's Wiki. English language belongs to everyone too, whoever our great-grand parents were. You might be surprised to know how humbled and grateful I feel about people who care to learn English and teach me about things I'd never know unless they are kind enough to talk to me in a language I understand.
It may be that on this "non-Brahminical" question, we have reliable sources that use it, and others that have an important objection to it. Perhaps we need to reflect both points of view, and fairly.
What I hope is that all three of us (and any one else who cares to join us) can agree to something that doesn't silence any reliable source.
What do you think of this idea Yogesh. It is important to define people positively, in terms of their own world view, rather than simply negatively as not Brahmin, or not white, or not "people like us", whoever we are. I don't know how we do that here, but sources (and you) might help us think of some good refinements. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AH please read Impressing the Whites, I think it will give you a little window into a coolie's mind. I think that the arguments put here (at least on my part) are no longer specific to this article. The trouble my dear friend is that most of what is thrown at us is a white man's conspiracy, including all that you say is not in a white man's exclusive domain now. My ability to express myself in English is a matter of shame, it is a manifestation of the slavery that my ancestors suffered for over 125 years. It is a sign of a lost culture, an uprooted tree, an erased past. It is like a collar around a dog's neck, the song of a bird in a cage, it reminds me of hundreds of thousands who were blown off cannons or strung up a tree, of conspirators and collaborators, of being taught to hate and deride my religion and spite my ancestors. English, it reminds me of the cut thumbs of the weavers of Dhaka and the murdered sons of Bahadur Shah Zafar and signs that read dogs and Indian's not allowed. The fees that have been paid for learning English is the loot that lies in the Tower of London and the Buckingham Palace, it has been paid by the blood and sweat of indigo farmers in Bihar and indentured slaves across the seas, by those who died in famines who numbered more than the combined combatant casualties in WWI and WWII and wretched living on less food than the Auschwitz rations, the carnage of the partition when there were so many dead bodies that dogs ate only livers. Yogesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.66.174 (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Anon who claims to be Yogesh, ain't we digressing? The allegations about "read Impressing the Whites". Come to the point. There is a thick line between between non-Brahmins and non-Brahmanical. Brahmanical refers to the ritualistic, mainstream Hinduism dominated by Brahmins. Brahmanism is "The social and religious system of orthodox Hindus, especially of the Brahmins, based on a caste structure and various forms of pantheism." Varkari is neither orthodox Hinduisms (no yagnas, no abhisheka and no Sanskrit mantra pujas with the Brahmin pujaris), nor based on the caste system. Anyway, we already have references to back the non-Brahman character of the Varkaris, also "non-Brahmanical" is scholarly term used by many scholars. [19]--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about not logging in, and the digression is by your leave. I have quoted a reference. I think VDS understands Hinduism better than any Tom, dick and Hari. And yes AH earlier it was Indians and dogs, may be equally despicable but separate species, in the meanwhile we have had a miscegenation, and evolved into a breed, a bloody Indian-Slumdog. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
R I checked the searches you linked to. Look what I have found ---> http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/nonhindu.html (10-9 seconds). This is just one example of use of the term n-b and will explain why I used all the vitriol I have for it. If you still don't get it R, I think we are talking different languages. AH do you?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article Yogesh. The Harappan deity's horns look distinctly different to the Celtic horned deity's (decidedly curved v. straight with subsidiary branches). Although I've not checked reliable sources, which would give dates and locations, I do not find the visuals of the article convincing. Wiki, you and I would all agree the article is nothing like a reliable source. But it does show a WP:UNDUE controversy that you are concerned could leak in to contaminate the current article.
I will disappoint you to admit that I am agnostic about whether the Indus civilization was Hindu. Afaik reliable sources have not established that it wasn't, but I'm pretty sure they have not established that it was.
Still, you certainly help me to understand a major objection you have to the expression "non-Brahminical", it feels to you like a denial of Vithoba worship being legitimately Hindu. You are not objecting as a Vithoba devotee protesting exclusion from orthodoxy, you are protesting on behalf of a broader Hindu-Indian assimilating tradition, which is ancient and venerable. Vithoba worship may include unorthodox Vakari elements, but has been and remains authentically (and exclusively) Indian, and assuredly Hindu, whatever its minor idiosyncracies.
To imply Vithoba devotion is anything less than thoroughly Indian and thoroughly Hindu would not only be inaccurate, but also yet another example of foreign influenced reframing of Indian and Hindu issues to suit their own ways of thinking, in flagrant disregard for millenia of Indian scholarship and culture. Indeed Europe knew nothing of science or civilization until taught by the Greeks and later again by the Arabs. For European cavemen, only recently equipped with any appearance of culture, to sit in judgement on a hugely ancient, refined and complex culture is the most flagrant impertinance and arrogance. And you are right.
However, I think perhaps I can now see a way forward. We need to assert the Indian-ness and the Hindu-ness of Vithoba devotion (which all reliable sources confirm). When we positively assert those important, verifiable and neutral things, the sense of "non-Brahminical" can only be interpreted in the very specific and limited sense of the sources Tiger has faithful relied upon. In the sense of those sources, the only sense we can offer at Wiki, the phrase means something like "non-ritualistic", "not ultimately governed by Brahmins or Brahminic tradition". Indeed, Brahminism is older than Vithoba devotion, and the cult arose independently of, but later harmonised with Brahminism. I would say, "how very Indian", meaning only the nicest things. But it is true, I have no right to make such comments.
What do you say to us adding sourced attributions of the Indian-ness and Hindu-ness of Vithoba devotion (if Vaishnavist is not adequate enough for that)? Alastair Haines (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS would you agree that the Harappan deity's crown, between his horns, appears very like the linga on the first statue of Shiva. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AH, the Pakistani article was a part of the search result coughed up by the link R has pasted above. I am not sure whether the headgear looks like a Shivling.
AH, I am glad that I have been clearly able to convey my angst at this article falling in the trap of the attempt of White Christian scholars and their Indian stooges, to drive a wedge between various Hindu groups. Hindu thinkers as far apart as Gandhi, Vinoba, Savarkar, Radhakrishnan, Vivekananda, Yogi Arvind, in space, time, ideology, practice, have unequivocally written that that Hindu cannot be used in the same sense as Christian or Muslim, it is similar to for example European. Agnostic or not, Harrapan is a Hindu heritage. The term Hindu is not just about faith, it is defined by shared mythology, fables, food, culture, history, clothes, language, philosophy and has footprints from the Mediterranean to the Pacific, the Indian ocean to the Gobi desert, Garuda rides on the Mongolian capital, Ulan bator's flag and is the name of the Indonesian national airline, the Buddha sits in Japanese homes, tagalog has substantial Sanskrit words, Yezidis are perhaps survivors of a Hindu presence in the near East, Mithraism was based on the worship of the Vedic sun god. Hinduism absorbed faiths like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Lingayat that started under a different banner. Foreign faiths like Jews and Zoroastrianism assimilated, so did pre-European Christianity, even Islam was Hinduised, the first thing that Bahadur Shah Zafar did when the freedom fighters overthrew the British from Delhi was to ban cow slaughter, music is haram in Islam, today no urs is complete without the Qawwali.
Getting back to Vithoba, this article betrays White Christian and coconut scholarship, when this argument started months ago I wrote that the tremendous effort that had gone into creating this article was clearly apparent, I reiterate it here in case it has been forgotten, that however is not reason enough to absolve the editors.
I wonder whether it would help if this article was reviewed by a Varkari scholar? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really can not the relation of Vithoba, non-Brahmanical and the Pakistani article from unreliable source. No reliable sources still to establish Brahmanical nature of Varkaris. To Alastair Haines, "non-Brahminical" is NOT a denial of Vithoba worship being legitimately Hindu. If it were true then many folk cults (numerous across India) of HINDU deities like Khandoba where Brahman priests and their rituals are absent, would not be called Hinduism at all. The unorthodox (read not-Brahmanical) ways of the Varkari - "which accepted women, Shudras and outcaste "untouchables", something forbidden in classical brahminical Hinduism." led to their glory and the glory of my Lord, Vithoba, who was "an alternative to the existing pantheon of brahminical deities", almost (not free in Pandharpur) free from "rigid ritualistic worship and Brahmin (priestly) control".--Redtigerxyz Talk 10:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
R I admire you for being so focused. Well this article was one of the results of the search link you have pasted above ----> [20]. I am glad you have used the upper case when you have qualified Khandoba as Hindu. However it is a common and base conspiracy to call some practice non-Brahmin first and then expand the fissure by calling it animist, etc. and ultimately non-Hindu. Non-Brahmin is the first stage of the vileness. I hope that you understand what the relation is. The Pakistani article one such example. This is without prejudice to the basic fact that the term is sheer nonsense (see Savarkar's quote above). Are we moving in circles? Catch hold of any Brahmin and another who is not one, what are their practices? Now you will lift the OR flag! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though google promotes geocities (their own) as reliable, wikipedia does not consider it. "Catch hold of any Brahmin and another who is not one, what are their practices?" Brahmanical refers to the Brahman rites and rituals, orthodox ritualistic Hinduism. Non-Brahmanical refers to the absence of the same. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vithoba/Archive_1&oldid=1089899558"