Bhagavad Gita was one of thePhilosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet thegood article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can berenominated. Editors may also seek areassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofIndia-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofHinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related tophilosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join thegeneral discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to bedefunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts
This article is supported byWikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach toMythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editingthe article, and help usassess and improve articles togood and1.0 standards, or visit theWikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofYoga,Hatha yoga,Yoga as exercise and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles onReligion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help usassess and improve articles togood and1.0 standards, or visit thewikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result:delisted Although the nomination for re-assessment is rather vague, I found a number of long outstanding citation needed tags and dead links. The prose could certainly do with a brush up and the organization of the article is poor. I would suggest a thorough clean up, followed by apeer review before renominating atWP:GAN.Jezhotwells (talk)18:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I request the re-assessment of the articlebhagavad gita, because :
The article does not provide relevant information in the relevant section.
The introductory paragraph sounds awkward,as it contains referenced appraisal by some other persons, which is not the way to introduce a major book of a major religion of the world and may not represent a worldwide view of the topic.
Comment: I see no evidence that primary editors or projects have been informed, which you should do. I fixed the article talk page as the GAR template had not been transcluded.Jezhotwells (talk)00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
People who haven't learnt संस्कृत वव्याकरणम् (Sanskrit grammar) well enough do this mistake quite often. In English, while onemay write as "Bhagavad Gita", while writing inSanskrit (Devanagari script), onemust either write asभगवत् गीता or asभगवद्गीता
The व्यंजन संधि (Vyanjana Sandhi) in Sanskrit works like these:
जगत् + ईश = जगदीश (see how letter त becomes द)
भगवत् + भक्ति = भगवद्भक्ति (see how letter त becomes द)
The term भगवद् written independently is incorrect.
It has. Yoga is an orthodox vedic school which came from samkhya which is another orthodox brahmannical vedic school Seems pretty mainstrem to me. Stpo with your fantasies. How the hell can you discard all the evidence. I am amazed.Hismajesty2b (talk)19:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asteramellus @QuillThrills I have given my reasoning. This page is ridden with serious POV stuff. Do as you see fit. This guy restored The OR about buddhism too as well as changed hindu philosophy to indian philosophy to unnecessarily without evidence incorporate other non hindu schools. I cant debate with a stubborn ignorant.Hismajesty2b (talk)19:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hismajesty2b Thanks for pinging me, however, I find "what originated from what" and "what was the origin" etc type of questions in Hinduism quite complex and difficult to satisfy all editors/readers. From my experience with reading many sources, some sources say one thing, and then other sources support quite opposite and I guess traditional views might say completely different. Joshua has a lot of knowledge in this space, and I discuss as needed when I disagree or see something that I have questions for. I suggest that we at least keep the page stable, and discuss on talk first. I also suggest creating different topic on this talk page for each specific section which has "serious POV stuff" to make it easy to follow. Also, please readWP:TPG.Asteramellus (talk)19:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kind reminder: we rely onWP:RS, not on personal (mis)understandings. Regardingyou [...] changed hindu philosophy to indian philosophy,you changed "Indian religious thought" into "Hindu philosophy." Regardingbut after the rise of Buddhism, by which it was influenced, Upadhyaya (1988), p.18: "The view that the MB was composed not lang after the time of Buddha is corroborated..." You are pov-pushing and edit-warring, ignoring Wiki-policies and feedback, and you have reached [[WP:3RR].Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!19:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not long after Buddha is saame as " inspired from it"? Who is pov pushing? Do you take everyone for an idiot? Samkhya is already mentioned. Buddhism itself came from Samkhya. If you dont have sufficient knowledge, why even bother?Hismajesty2b (talk)19:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were no Buddhist texts either to cross verify. If anything, later Buddhist texts were inspires. But we dont assert these things. But oin your case, you want to assert things which are likely to be exact opposite.Hismajesty2b (talk)19:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now tell me why do you want to add some stuff which is extremely debatable (you know that) when the article can do without it.We should not cherry pick sources for it and even twist the words.Hismajesty2b (talk)19:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even you know there are various much more mainstream sources like Patrick , Wiltshere etc that have an entirely different story to tell. So why cherrypick and push one view that is even contrary to available evidence? This is not the page for it. Why do you want to add speculations? What is your gain from it? I have only removed personal commentary (for eg: writing post buddha as buddha inspired). Talking about indian philosophy as a whole when following sentece talks about hindu philosophy only. My point is it is UNDUE specially in this page. Then you want me to add commentary on brahmanic and sramanic relation just after this using other scholars? Whats the point? Its only going to increase the lenghth of the article unnecessarily. Requesting you politely to not to add unnecessary speculative debatable stuff.Please!Hismajesty2b (talk)19:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be good if you can specify the section and the content that you think is UNDUE (maybe create different topic for each). As mentioned here, Lead summarizes the body. So, if body has UNDUE, it may appear in LEAD. And if body has multiple sides for the view, I think best to keep LeadWP:NPOV.Asteramellus (talk)19:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If i start writing about every undue thing in every hindu related page then it will take me countless births. Here i randomly saw something extremely debatable and majorly undue was pushed in lede. so i spoke up. But look at the result. Thats why i avoid Hindu pages. In Wikipedia, its a hellhole. Body of an article is usually full of many undue sentences but that should not reflect in the same undue and pov ridden manner in lede atleast. if someone can later make the correction in the body, then its fine. But lede is priority.Hismajesty2b (talk)19:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one of us is certainly prejudiced. And yes, the lede summarizes the body, and the summary is the same. What's undue is the repetitive POV-pushing about what's Brahmanical, what's Vedic, what's non-Vedic but Brahmanical, what's Vedic but non-Brahmanical, etc., etc. This isn't the page for that. Prejudice is when you knowingly give speculations more weight than empirical, verifiable evidence and still remain stubborn about it because they go against your precious beliefs. I see no reason to put this stuff back unless you enjoy hurting hindu sentiments.Hismajesty2b (talk)21:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well, currently we are discussing just one page. If you want to contribute, you need to findWP:RS that says otherwise and/or verify that the POV is not in the cited source. I saw your edits - e.g. this was changed "Kashi Nath Upadhyaya dates it a bit earlier, but after the rise of Buddhism, by which it was influenced with edit summary "They are UNDUE as well as incorrect." I think it would help if you can find out if cited source supports this or not and then give reason. And why you think isWP:UNDUE, if source do support those words. It might feel frustrating, but Hinduism is vast with a lot of interpretations, and talk discussions can help decide what is due and undue. Hope this helps and you attempt to try out talk discussion with your analysis.Asteramellus (talk)21:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
regardless of the claim that Yoga is not Hindu in origin (which I find a little dubious), there is simply no need for the amount of repetition and attention brought to this distinction that @Joshua Jonathan and @Chariotrider555 are so keen on highlighting in an article about the Gita - it seems to me as @Hismajesty2b pointed out, they are indeed POV pushing and apparently (not accusing, just stating facts of what has happened to me whilst editing this article): I am seeing tag teaming of reverts - effectively luring newer editors into making 3 reverts while 2 users with same POV "take turns" reverting an edit. In this case I only made 2 edits while @Joshua Jonathan and @Chariotrider555 each made 1. My next revert would have been undoubtedly been a slap on the wrist for me so I just quit. This type of behavior is not constructive.
Meanwhile I'm perfectly fine with your views being in the article. My only goal in making the edit was to make Wikipedia accessible and relevant to the AVERAGE reader of wikipedia - this article is not a thesis on how much a 2000+ year old text owes some of its ideas to Buddhism. In this case I see potentially the need for maybe only 1 section that could discuss the origins of ideas as being brahmanical or shramanic and I'm sure multiple views can be expressed there. And as @Asteramellus said, Joshua is experienced editor and I respect that, but sometimes spending too long on Wikipedia can make one lose sight of what an AVERAGE READER is looking for when they come to this site. My guess is they aren't expecting to get hit with terms like Brahmanical in the intro to an article on the Gita and instead they want to answer much broader questions on what this text is in a more accessible way. In my humble opinion, there is certainly no need to harp on this distinction in multiple sections & in multiple ways and there should be room for edits to be made freely without tag teaming reverts as @Joshua Jonathan and @Chariotrider555 appear to be doing.QuillThrills (talk)04:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QuillThrills: thank you for responding here. Regarding "tag-team": please assumeWP:GOODFAITH; Chariotrider555 and I are doing what we're supposed to do here: summarizeWP:RS. In case of the Gita, that may diverge from the popular view of the Gita as a 'spiritual classic', but that's precisely why this scholarly view is so relevant: the Gita is aBrahmanic text, incorporating renouncer-ideas to propagate the opposite:not renouncing, but doing your duty in lay life. Upadhyaya, the author we've specifically been discussing, notes this too, referring to Gandhi, who admitted that the idea of going to war becase it's your duty doesnot fit in with ahimsa. Regards,Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!05:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see sanskritization. Do you think tribals taught incomming aryans to become vegetariqn and follow ahimsa? If you dont understand the nuances of hinduism why do you even bother? Who tge hell is gandhi compared to scholars like patrick olivielle?Hismajesty2b (talk)05:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did assume good faith until I saw a clear pattern. New to Wikipedia compared to you but I have basic pattern recognition skills. I've noticed a pattern where a team of experienced editors are quickly suppressing good faith edits by new users wherein you make reverts in rapid succession with a user who shares your POV such that any single editor cannot make a constructive edit at all without being drawn to an edit war. I do see that as a broader problem beyond the Gita article and I'd appreciate an admin at least looking into this pattern and explaining to new users like me whether this is how Wikipedia is supposed to be (if so how demotivating and futile for anyone with new ideas to improve this site), and not an example of experienced users merely silencing via edit wars by proxy.QuillThrills (talk)13:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
QuillThrills, if you have concerns regarding other editors' behavioral conduct, take them toWP:ANI orWP:AE withWP:DIFFs to prove it. My impression, having watched this dispute unfold here since its beginning, is that Joshua Jonathan and Asteramellus have done an adequate job observingWP:BRD, and even prioritized discussion when they arguably had the right-of-way to revert new changes.signed,Rosguilltalk14:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Although I will note,Joshua Jonathan, I think some of your engagement with Hismajesty2b, particularly in the "Incorporating teachings" section, was not helpful or collaborative. I'm inclined to allow some leeway given the amount of bellicose and non-policy-based argumentation that Hismajesty2b was bringing across this page as a whole, but I do want to acknowledge that the behavior in that sub-thread was not ideal)signed,Rosguilltalk14:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QuillThrills: Cr555 and I have both explained why we reverted your edits: because renouncer and Brahmanic values/religiosity are not on an equal footing in the Gita, as explained in the body. You removed that distinction, misrepresenting the body of the article.
As for the term 'Brahmanic' being too complicated for the "average" reader: I'd added a link to "Brahmanism," which explains the term. Wikipedia is meant to educate people, not to present incorrect simplifications or misrepresentations which would supposedly be easier to comprehend.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!03:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RegardingI see no reason to put this stuff back unless you enjoy hurting hindu sentiments., ignoringWP:GOODFAITH is not a valid reason to ignoreWP:RS andWP:LEAD.
Upadhyaya notes that the Mahabaratha mentions the Buddha's name numerous times, and also contains references to Buddhist practices, hence the Gita was written after the Buddha's lifetime. "Influenced by" may not be the besr phrase, but could be replaced by the previous remark. Note, by the way, that Upadhyaya's dating deviates from the mainstream scholarly datings.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!04:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but we know that these texts are a composite work developed over several centuries, with numerous later interpolations. The Buddha is not mentioned by name, but yes, some later recensions or regional versions of the Mahabharata (not the critical edition) contain references to a figure called "Sakyasimha" or "Sakyamuni", which some have taken to be the Buddha. But these are not present in the oldest, critically reconstructed text. However, stating that the Gita itself was influenced or inspired by Buddhism is inappropriate. We don't even know what early Buddhism was truly like. In fact, there's more Krishna in Buddhist and Jain texts than there is Sakyamuni or mahavira in Hindu texts.Hismajesty2b (talk)05:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really read what I wrote, or even read Upadhyaya? Upadhyaya himself states that the MB repeatedly rerfers to the Buddha, and therefor concludes that the MB, and therefor the Gita, postdates the Buddha.
There is no explicit reference to historical Gautam buddha anywhere in Mahabharata.The term “buddha” in Sanskrit simply means the awakened one or the enlightened one, and can be used as an adjective or a noun to refer to wise or enlightened individuals in general.
In several places, the Mahabharata uses “buddha” or “buddhiman” to refer to wise persons, learned sages, or enlightened beings, but these are not references to Gautama Buddha.
There is only one verse in the Śānti Parva (Book of Peace), Chapter 49, which mentions a “buddha” born in Kikata (Magadha region) who will delude the asuras.
This sounds suspiciously similar to the Puranic idea of Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, sent to mislead the asuras and heretics.
But this verse is considered a later interpolation, likely added after Buddhism had already become prominent, possibly as a Vaishnavite response to the Buddhist challenge.
Have you ever read these texts? Or you just wait for your cherrypicked scholars to pass their opinion which you later cling to.
But this is entirely different debate. Stop inserting buddhism everywhere in hindu pages. We dont write Brahmmanical inspired infront of Buddhism everywhere even though there are numerous RS scholars citing credible evidence and texts. You know why? Because its a sensitive topic which is debated and is not appropriate for every page. You are obsessed And if you want to insert mention of Buddha then attribute the claim because there is no general consensus as far as i know that mahabharata talks about historical Buddha. I am done here. How much pov push can i fight aloneHismajesty2b (talk)05:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hismajesty2b Do you have academic source discussing Mahabharata's use of buddha to be not in reference to Gautama Buddha? Just a suggestion that if you do, then along with Upadhyaya details, you can include that to keep the content NPOV. Again, just want to mention that arguing withoutWP:RS doesn't help the discussion.Asteramellus (talk)12:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hell would anyone even talk about it? Mahabharata is set in dwapar yuga. Do you think people who wrote such complex literature were that idiots that they will include someone from kaliyuga in their story/literature? The problem is there is no limit to human speculations. Someone saw buddha written , got excited. I explained everything somewhere in the discussions about buddha in mahabharata. The main problem is that it was asserted without attribution and in wrong section.Hismajesty2b (talk)12:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking here about Upadhyaya; please stick to the subject. Upadhyaya p.18:
In the MB. the words 'Buddha' and 'Prati Buddha' occur in many places in the sense of enlightened man, which may reasonably be considered to signify that the author of the MB. knew about Buddha.
As an uninvolved admin that has been following this discussion, it must be said: your argument here Hismajesty2b is becoming tendentious. It's clear that the main point that you are trying to defend is "Bhagavad Gita predates Buddhism". But the text of the article you changed is the attributed perspective of a single scholar, who defends a position which suggests that Bhagavad Gita is a few centuries older than most other scholars. In order to actually support the position that you're arguing for, you need to bring in equal-or-better sources citing a pre-Buddhist date for the Bhagavad Gita, not take potshots at Upadhyaya.signed,Rosguilltalk06:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: thanks for your intervention. Upadhyaya does indeed give an older dating for the Gita, butdoes date itafter the Buddha. H2b seems to approach the Gita from a popular perspective, taking it as a spiritual text integrating the various Hindu-darsanas. While the Gitais a synthetic text, it prioritizes Brahmanic values over ascetic ideals, as noted and explained by scholars. That point seems hard to grasp.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!06:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill It’s not about dating. My first revert was to the original undue commentary—'inspired/influenced by Buddhism'—which Joshua then changed to something like 'the Gita mentions Buddha (the historical one) and Buddhist ideas.' That is grossly inappropriate and fringe, and it was added without any attribution.i talked about it somewhere in talk page in detail.
Another issue was the repetitive mention of which ideas are Brahmanical, which are non-Brahmanical, what is Vedic, and what is non-Vedic, etc. This is not the page to assert what is or isn’t Brahmanical, especially when it's well known—even to him—that these matters are heavily debated, and the empirical, verifiable evidence we do have contradicts such simplistic claims.
What’s the point of me adding two or three more paragraphs with other sources just to counter those points? Why include undue commentary using cherry-picked sources? Why is there a need to contrast and delineate Yoga from Brahmanism repeatedly, especially when evidence and many modern scholars argue against that view? Why must 'Buddhism-inspired' be added to every Hindu-related page? I mean, after a point, it just becomes irritating.Hismajesty2b (talk)12:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hismajesty2b If you're going to accuse academic texts of beingWP:FRINGE, you need to provide more-reliable sources that demonstrate that. If you don't do that, there's really nothing for other editors to discuss with you. I don't have any opinions about the actual content included in this article, but you've summarily failed to provide any real, Wikipedia-policy-valid arguments here thus far.signed,Rosguilltalk13:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously views can be fringe. How many scholars subscribe to that view? One? And as you said that you dont have much idea about the subject. Ok now tell me whats written in the actual text of the so called RS and what joshua wrote in the article? If you cant even analyse that why even interfere? Just because its cool or because you are admin so its your duty? I am waiting for your analysis of what the Rs said, what joshua wrote and where and how it was inserted. WaitingHismajesty2b (talk)13:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is my duty as an admin to remove editors who are not complying with Wikipedia's policies. If you continue to waste people's time without bringing any sources to support your arguments, I'm going to issue sanctions. On the other hand, if you present a real, valid argument, you are welcome to continue.signed,Rosguilltalk13:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for what? I deleted something undue which was written in a twisted way. Thats why i asked you to check the source, the text and then come back to me. I mean seriously , am i talking in some alien language?Hismajesty2b (talk)13:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But just so that it's clear what the expectation of good-faith editing here was: you needed to bring a quality source that contradicts the clearly stated quote from Upadhyaya p.18. This should be quite simple if Upadhyaya's claims are as FRINGE as you claimed. But instead you fired from the hip and continued to edit war, hence your loss of editing privileges.signed,Rosguilltalk13:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Quillthrills edits. Yoga is not exclusively associated with only ascetic ideal of isolation. And in any case, there were vedic ascetics before ascetism became cool. What is the appropriation here by brahmanic authors? Yoga and meditation? Where did it originate? Who wrote upanishads? Where does samkhya philosophy derive its concepts and proto ideas from? If anything is debatable, then this is not the page to assert speculations.
changing
The Gita is a synthesis of various strands of Indian religious thought, including the Vedic concept ofdharma (duty, rightful action);samkhya-basedyoga andjnana (knowledge); andbhakti (devotion).{{sfn|Smith|2009|p=xii}}{{efn|name="synthesis"}}
into
The Gita is a synthesis of various strands ofHindu philosophy, including the concept ofdharma (duty, rightful action); orthodox hindu schoolsamkhya basedyoga andjnana (knowledge); andbhakti (devotion).{{sfn|Smith|2009|p=xii}}{{efn|name="synthesis"}}
Please maintain NPOV and stop adding undue speculations as assertions. They are UNDUE as well as incorrect. Also stop reverting the orignal commentary as well. What is your problem.
What's my problem? A lot:
Quillthrills' edits: I don't agreediff, "Get real. It's not a matter of 'also', it's a matter of 'though': Brahmanic authors appropriating non-Brahmanic culture, to promote their own worldview. You're substantially altering the meaning of the text.", nor doesUser:Chariotrider555diff, "These have very different meanings." You seem to miss the basic point: the Gita is not a 'spiritual' (anachronitic, modern meaning) text but a synthesis aimed at propagating Brahmanic householder values, using the language of their opponent, as explained in the body of the article;
Yoga is not exclusively associated with only ascetic ideal of isolation. - where does this come from? How does it justify your mistaken changes?
And in any case, there were vedic ascetics before ascetism became cool. - nice wordplay, "became cool" (nirvana), but what's does this have to do with it? Or do you want to argue that the sramanic movements orignated in Brahmanism? SeeYoga#Earliest references (1000–500 BCE) ff, for what sobering thoughts;
What is the appropriation here by brahmanic authors? - see above;
Yoga and meditation? Where did it originate? Who wrote upanishads? Where does samkhya philosophy derive its concepts and proto ideas from? - scholarly consensus is that the sramanic movementsincluded Brahmins and Brahmanical frames of thought, but were notderived from Brahmanism;
If anything is debatable, then this is not the page to assert speculations. - that's not specualtion that's scholarly consensus
Smith does not speak about "Hindu philosophy," but about "spiritual paths";
When did "dharma" become a school of philosophy?
Samkhya became a formal school of thought in the 4th century CEYoga came to be considered as a separate school of philosophy at the end of the first millenniem CE; the idea of six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy developed as late as the 12th-16th century; theHindu synthesis developed around the start of the CE,exemplified by the Gita; it's only thereafter that we can speak of 'schools of Hindu philosophy'; so, the use of the term "Hindu philosophy"
Why was "Vedic" removed from "Vedic concept of dharma"? To conceal the fact that the Gita is a Brahmanic text? This is notWP:UNDUE; on the contrary, it's a central feature of the Gita, as pointed out by scholarship, and explained in the text. Maybe that's not what you want to read, preferring a 'spiritual', eclectic reading, but we summarize here scholarship, not popular opinion
All of the concepts correspond to what we call Hindu philosophy.what is the logic of writing Indian philosophy instead? Removing vedic was not to conceal anything but because because its redundant. Only dharma is vedic? Thats pov.Hismajesty2b (talk)06:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are an idiot. A school becoming formal has nothing to do with the synthesis of the ideas that constitute that school with those of another school tback when they were noy formal.. For example, Advaita did not begin with Shankara. There is no fixed date. Hinduism is not a formal religion. You have a disease for which i have no cure. All your arguments are just pov pushing nothing else. When your call for help from your favourite admins failed you decided to edit war again. This is nonsense. @Quillthrill@Asteramellus. This guy is motivated. He will.keep on shitting here. Cant understand basic little things but will.lush his fantasiea as facts everywhere. I am not dealing with this.Hismajesty2b (talk)04:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not dealing with this - yes, youare - and you arenot. You keep coming back to me, and you keep falling back into rants. Why don't you try what we're supposed to do: present your point of view with relevant sources? It's fun, and it's rewarding; apart from handing knowledge to others, you alsoe ducate yourself. Much more satisfying than getting angry. Regards, anyway,Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!05:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? How many pages have you worked regarding brahamana and sramana? Do yoy think there are no sources which refutes your speculations? This is not the page for thatHismajesty2b (talk)05:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Gita praises the benefits ofyoga[1][2] inreleasing man'sinner essence from the bounds of desire and thewheel of rebirth,[3] while propagating the idea of living according to one's duty ordharma, in contrast to the ascetic ideal of seekingliberation by avoiding allkarma.[1]
References
^abScheepers 2000, pp. 122–127. sfn error: no target: CITEREFScheepers2000 (help)
"Incorporating teachings from theUpanishads and thesamkhyayoga philosophy" serves as an introduction to this line, contrasting renunciation-ideals with the Brahmanic householder ideal.
As explained before, "Hindu philosophy" is anachronistic.
regardingsamkhya is a philosophy that arose from those texts, the main subject here is yoga, not samkhya.
Nope. Samkhya developed from proto samkhya ideas found in vedas and upanishads. Writing upanishads "and samkhya" feels like an attempt to deleniate samkhya with upanishads. If you want to write household vs ascetic then write that. What is brahmmanical vs ascetic? There were vedic ascetics. Same thing again and againHismajesty2b (talk)06:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And where did yoga came from? The lede mentions samkhya derived yoga. What does evidence suggests? Where is it mentiojed first? Stop Pov pushing And be civil.pathetic. byeHismajesty2b (talk)06:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are unbelievable. How you pick and chose what to read. Everything is clear from my side. I want mental.peace. Dont have free time like you for day and night editing hindu articles while abusing them side by side. You have an agenda. Not going to waste more time here.Hismajesty2b (talk)07:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the most well-known quotation in Western culture from the Bhagavad Gītā is thanks to Robert Oppenheimer. Does it trouble anyone here that it seems to be a mistranslation? He quoted the line "now I am become death, destroyer of worlds", but neither the Sanskrit original nor the modern translation by Swami Prabhupāda support this. The 1968 English translation of verse 11.32 attributes the statement to Krshna: "Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds..." This is supported from the Sanskrit text, which word-by-word is "time I am of the worlds the destroyer great" to begin the statement. It seems that someone mixed up "death" and "time" in Oppenheimer's mind, or in a poor translation he had access to.Safulop (talk)05:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He supposedly read it in the original Sanskrit, though it seems his grasp of the language wasn't as good as he thought it was!Dāsānudāsa (talk)09:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A colleague pointed out that his choice of grammar "I am become" is unaccusative syntax, which is also not present in the Sanskrit text. There is only the word for "I am", apparently not a word meaning "become" although I am not a Sanskrit expert by any means.Safulop (talk)18:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm well, it seems like a stretch to me, to argue that "death" is ever a good translation of the word "time". The verse makes sense to me when it means "time", but not "death". Death doesn't destroy worlds, time does. But, alas, we only cite and repeat things here.Safulop (talk)20:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though late, I beg to disagree..The grammar is archaic rather than straight.
The Time here is personified time and the word Kaal is also used for Yama-who deals with death and justice, The death here can mean death in form of time, death is a noun but it can be used in far more context and variety for ex. in Mahabharata, warriors saying "tera kaal aa gya hai"..Your's time(of Death) has came and I will send you to Yamduta isn't it?. And what is the purpose Kala here in this context as well.2409:40E4:1:A007:EC07:A636:935B:D1A (talk)21:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The additional details are interesting, but it has resulted in a very long image caption.Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions suggests up to 3 lines of text for a caption. Can we move some of the material to the body? Maybe also include the central thesis of Hijiya 2000, about how Oppenheimer's concept of dharma from the Gita seemingly influenced his attitude towards his (in)famous role in creating the atomic bomb.Perception312 (talk)13:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Joshua Jonathan, I noticed you reverted my removal of Vyasa's epithets. I thought it would be good to be consistent as the section mentions Ganesha but does not say "also known as Ganapati, Vinayaka and Pillaiyar." Including all such epithets for all names gives undue weight on details that are once removed. For example, theSamudra Manthana page does not include "Vishnu, also known as Narayan or Hari" or "Lakshmi, also known as Shri."Swirlymarigold (talk)17:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
