Talk:Krishna

Typo

ISCKON should be corrected to ISKCON 203.221.17.46 (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed; thank you for pointing this out. Certes (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

lord krishna full name Lord sri vasudeva krishnavardhan in vedas bhagavat puran book 5 chapter 1 verse and Vishnu purana book 5 chapter 1 vedas like yajurveda tarttiya samitha 4.1.1 and rigveda 1.22.126 chapter and harivamasa purana chapter 1 book 5 24 Arth3008 (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

per tradition: deity or Supreme God?

@DaxServer @Redtigerxyz could you refer any scripture or contemporary belief that Krishna is perceived as a deity rather than Supreme God? Sources like Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavada Purana etc. all refer Krishna as the Supreme God, thus I do not understand deity categorization —कृष्णकुलि^Krsnaquli || Contact - 15:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Traditions that concern Krishna emphasize nothing but Krishna to be Supreme God. That includes Bhagavad Gita, arguably the most well-known scripture of Hinduism, which declares Krishna as the Supreme God. For that, I believe Krishna should be emphasized as Supreme God of Vaishnavism. I couldn't trace any sign on Krishna being considered a deity on any scripture. —Krsnaquli || Contact - 15:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Krishna is not perceived as Supreme God in other sects like Shaivism and Shaktism and related Puranas. Also in Vaishnavism, Vishnu is generally the Supreme God; in Vaishnava sub-sects like Ramaism - Rama is Supreme; in these Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Krishna worship practice is not observed in Shaivism or Shaktism. And in Vaishnavism regardless of subsects all Vishnu Krishna and Rama is believed to be Supreme God. Subsects differ by the status of manifestations, not on the Supreme God. —Krsnaquli || Contact - 10:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Apart from that, Krishna is a Mahabharata figure and His status is Supreme Self on Mahabharata. I have never encountered anything else in practice, but even if that was the case, His ontological status can never be observed as a deity or any other figure when narratives are considered as a whole. —Krsnaquli || Contact - 19:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz @DaxServer Again, could you please refer any source that considers Krishna of Mahabharata as a deity? —Krsnaquli || Contact - 19:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that Krishna isn't considered the supreme God by non-Vaishnava traditions. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"It is quite obvious that Allah isn't considered the Supreme God by non-Islamic traditions."

I am aware of what you are pointing out. I am just asking for a reference that Krishna is considered as a non-Supreme deity by tradition(s). —Krsnaquli || Contact - 16:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but it's hard to prove a negative. The fact Shiva is considered supreme by Shaivites automatically implies that no other god/deva/deity (including Krishna) is. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the case of Krishna is completely different than the case of Shiva. Krishna is a Mahabharata figure and is the Supreme Lord per Mahabharata. Unlike Shiva, Krishna doesn't appear in any scripture as having any role other than the Supreme Being. Thus, Krishna figure could only represent the concept of "Supreme Lord", and all I asked was scriptual evidence that would prove otherwise. Even if there is some unpopular opinion that considers Krishna as a non-Supreme deity, Such opinion wouldn't represent any scriptural and authentic tradition.

Again, if Shaivism or any other religious tradition holds a position that considers Krishna as a non-Supreme deity, Please refer. —Krsnaquli || Contact - 19:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, Krishna is subservient (to Radha) in the Radha Vallabha Sampradaya. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but Krishna's supremacy isn't mentioned in the early bhakti poetry. The Gita Govinda is far more concerned with his amorous adventures, where Radha and the gopis see him as their young friend and lover, not as God. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that bhakti poetry doesn't focus on Krishna's supremacy or that Gita Govinda contains emphasis on Krishna's worldly role doesn't really refute the Krishna figure representing the Supreme Being, but Radha Vallabha Sampradaya indeed comes with a valid different perspective. If other editors also agree upon suggesting Krishna as a deity figure rather than Supreme Lord of Vaishnavism for Radha Vallabha tradition, I don't have much to say. But my idea still persists: that Krishna is a Mahabharata figure and he represents the Supreme Lord according to the Mahabharata and traditions that concern Him (except Radha Vallabha). —Krsnaquli || Contact - 19:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Image

I recommend this painting ([1]) replacing the contemporary infobox image ([2]) per better representation. —Krsnaquli || Contact - 16:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

General Comment: the img which you suggested is copyrighted by Bhaktivedanta Trust, and as per source, should be use under "fair use" for any purpose. Seyamar_(245CMR)^💬📜 16:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The infobox image should be a non-sectarian depiction of Krishna. The image you suggested is very much in the International Society for Krishna Consciousness painting tradition and is not representative of the wide spectrum of Krishna worship/depiction. Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It is a copyrighted image, which cannot be used. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding old image to Vishnu and Godd statue for Shiva.

why so much difference my dear @Dāsānudāsa

So many statue of Vishnu are found in world such as Angkor wat Vishnu temple, Cambodia, Garuda wisnu kencana, so many, add This

if you didn't add atleast change shiva image add old photo to shiva, treat all are equal, you promote Shiva supremacy and wiki user's shows bad light to Lord Vishnu.

only karma can teach you.

If you have humanitarian change and treat all as equal.

@Chariotrider555

@Redtigerxyz

@Seyamar Jaranthadss (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

why so much info on shiva when compare to vishnu info.

Treat all are equals.

@Chariotrider555

@Redtigerxyz

@Seyamar Jaranthadss (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Why do you want a picture of a statue so badly? I genuinely don't understand. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Why so much info added main info on shiva compared to vishnu Jaranthadss (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

wiki users promote good article and treat everything as equally, even i didnt enter wiki and edits article. Very waste of time, even you peoples didnt add, even didnt give permission to edits. What irony

@Dāsānudāsa Jaranthadss (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Gibberish, as usual Dāsānudāsa (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

So much info on shiva top infobox, isnt Gibberish. Is that wikipedia or whatsapp media.

I didnt understand it Jaranthadss (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Krishn

"krishn" which means dark , which also means attraction.

Krishn or krishna is the avatar of "Lord Vishnu"

Krishn - represents a figure in Hinduism, a personality of divine , love , growth, and spiritual.

As a spiritual and divine prince he plays the major role in Mahabharata, guiding humanity, teaching lessons of right or wrong.

According to Hindu mythology and traditions,krishn was born on a night called "Janmashtami",which falls on the eight day of dark half of the month of Bhadrapada(usually in August or September).

Krishn was born by Mata Devaki ( mother) and Vasudeva (father) but krishn upbringing and childhood were nurtured by Maiya Yashoda (mother) and Nanda(father, a cowherd chief of gokula)

Ndsjd (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Addition of the term Bhagavan uvach in the text for Sri Krishna referring as supreme lord

I am trying to add the term Bhagavan uvach in the text but @Hbanm seems quite biased with narratives and very adamant. Here is the talk page filled with similar complaints from other editors. I tried to discuss with him on his talk page to resolve but it seems he is acting like a barrier on wikipedia for new content, and always in the mood of edit war. Moreover he seem to have quite in a good relationship with the term "vandalism". You can see this word frequently in most of his reverts. He even used it for the on-going discussion on his talk page. Finally when he told me not to discuss further on his talk page I have opened a new topic in the article's talk page for resolution. I need other editors, mediators (hopefully more easy to talk to) to intervene and tell their pov. Mm0522 (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I told you many times on my talk page that word "Bhagvan" doesn't mean "Supreme God" nor the word "Bhagavan Uvach" has anything to do with Supreme God as you stated in your edit. The word "Bhagavan Uvach" only means "Lord says" nothing else. And the YouTube Video link you provided as a source is also not a reliable source. You can't counter anything logically, so you started personal attack. I have a good relationship with the word "vandalism" because I am here to stop the same. And when I revert unsourced and POV edits, editors come to my talk page for clarification and I have provided that to them, if only you have read the talks on my talk pages. Sometimes when I was frustrated with their repeated questions despite of my best attempts to explain to them the reason for the reversion, I have used a little harsh tone, nothing else. Hbanm (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hbanm I started this talk so that I can include others and get their pov. Of course your know-it-all behavior and forbidding me to discuss on your talk page was enough to stop over there. I don't want to go for an edit war like you. Please don't ruin the discussions over here. Let someone else sensible come and clarify. I don't mind dropping the edit if someone else says so, but except you. Please, now join this topic only if someone asks you to. Mm0522 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

As if I want to join this discussion, I just clarified the personal attack you made on me. And stop bothering me by mentioning me again and again in your replies.Go bother someone else. Hbanm (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No one is trying to attack you. That's just you contemplating everything, like your edit war and thinking wikipedia is your own property and others are trying to damage it. I see your this behavior with others as well. No, its not like that. Mentioning you was just a very civil way to let you know that I had acknowledged your denial to discuss the edit on your talk page. It was with a good faith. Wikipedia is an open wiki and even next generations will keep on editing and add new things which may be outside of your understanding. You need not revert every new thing. If you revert something be ready to explain and people will come to your talk page, mention you in article's talk page. If you feel bothered with the protocols, stop bothering others' edit. No one is interested in you.

Waiting for others to join the discussion with good faith... Mm0522 (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I explained you so many times on my talk page, no matter how many talks you start on the article's talk page, no matter how many editors you reach out to, you will be not be able to add this information without the reliable source. So I recommend you that instead of unnecessarily bashing me, please find a reliable source and you can add anything you want, no one can stop you. And if you think that you can add this information citing that "Hindi YouTube video" link or by starting the talk on the talk page of the article, you are very much mistaken and probably wasting your time. Hbanm (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)