Talk:Bhagavad Gita/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Removing sectarian biases

The following is going to go out:

"In modern day world there are tons of interpretation of Gita, none of them are quite authentic or have any indepth philosophical meaning. Reason behind is insufficient grasp of the same by authors."

This sounds like a comment by someone who thinks his guru's version is the only authoritative version, and the rest are the work of mental speculators and all sorts of "unauthorized" folk. While people are entitled to the opinion, it really has no place in an encyclopaedia entry. Vide "Bhagavad Gita AS IT IS". Raga 19:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

And more in the same vein. Oh joy. I'm submitting this article for improvement, it really needs to be reworked thoroughly both with regards to its structure, the facts featured as well as its language. Typos, anyone? Some of the stuff was written and never even read through once by the writer! This precious book deserves an entry reflecting its merits. Raga 19:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

I think that it would be a good idea to give a detailed description of each and every shloka of The Bhagavad Gita, it's translation(in Hindi as well as English), it's description(both, Short and a more Detailed one)it's significance, the main characters, their description, etc. The same is there for the Bible. We should do the same thing for the Gita. After all, it's a holy text. User:Rushtome

Yes, there should be someting like this...The Gita is a great source of info for people everywhere, and hopefully someone will do this..

To give an accuracte and detailed description of all 700 slokas is a bit beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article in my opinion. ;-) Complete versions are already available online on other websites if interested? See Bhagavad Gita Online for example. GourangaUK 07:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Traditionally, the Mahabharata (and the Ramayana) are considered not Purana, but Itihasa, which is Sanskrit for 'history' (and literally translates to approximately 'and thus it happened'). Although, to be honest, I don't know enough to distinguish between the two. Gokul 19:39, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

---

So, ah... where the khell did the years 1316 and 1424 come from? Eh? Eh? This seems totally bogus and made-up to me. Cite? Graft

Good question - but note it's 1424 BC, not 1424. Astronomical measurements can be pinpointed in time with amazing accuracy. (Astronomy is one of the major subjects covered in Mahabharata, so there was plenty of precise astronomical data for historians to go by.) Mkweise 23:22 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough. Graft

---

I fail to see what makes these extlinks relevant here:

• http://www.siddhayoga.org
• http://www.yoga.com/roots/yoga/info/Geeta/geeta.html

Mkweise 20:40 21 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Okay, so now we have 2nd century BCE as the composition date. Anyone want to cite this? Also the claim that the gita is a syncretic text that brings together strains amongst which is Buddhism does not seem credible, since Buddhism developed after the Gita was written, yes? Some links/resources discussing this? Graft 21:30 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The gita has jackall to do with Buddhism. Its entire concept of God-Being is at odds with Buddhism, and it clearly draws purely from the Hindu strains of Yoga and Samkhya, notwithstanding all the Upanishadic philosophy that easily predates Buddhadev. Much of what some people term 'Buddhist' thinking was already to be found pre-Buddhism in Vedic philosophy.

The gita was sort of a hindu answer to buddhism. Karma yoga is much more grounded in "reality" than many of the other yogas, and this was a buddhist criticism of hinduism, that it was two concerned with its multitude of gods.

The composition date has been changed, and a note put in there about its uncertainty. I think it's best if we leave in a few dates (as suggested by whatever evidence) rather than claim to KNOW the correct date - because nobody really does. Personally I think 2nd century BC was a downright absurd date to put in there. And yes, of course Buddhism came much after the Gita was written. It was actually a reaction to the degradation of Hinduism at the time, with the decline of the caste system, the animal sacrifices and the opulence and materialism that had seeped in. But even so, some scholars maintain that Lord Buddha's teachings fall within the folds of Hinduism and that it was Hindu philosophy which was only revealed in a very minimal and stripped down form, to cleanse it of the dirt that had been gathering on it.

doesn't sound right.

This is a great article, informative and everything... but it doesn't sound like an encyclopedia. "For its religious depth, quintessential Upanishadic and Yogic philosophy and beauty of verse, the Bhagavad Gita is one of the most compelling and important texts to come out of the Hindu tradition. Indeed, it stands tall among the world's greatest religious and spiritual scriptures." That sounds good and dramatic, but a bit too dramatic for an encyclopedia. I'm not sure how to appropriatly fix this problem, or if it's a problem at all; but maybe someone could alter it a bit?

why

It didn't seem excessive to me. Is any of it controversial? 24.10.180.127 07:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Biases?

The Bhagavad Gita seems to take contradictory positions from time to time, and a Hindu friend suggested that some parts were added/modified in order to satisfy particular rulers (eg., to justify the caste system). I'm sure a definitive answer would be hard to come by, but can anyone comment (preferably in the article itself) on the biases that have been frequently suggested? 24.10.180.127 07:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One might respond to this supposed justification of caste by saying that the Gita does not view caste the way we do. Caste is not hereditary, and indeed is not a term known to Hindus of that time. Rather, the word was varna (shade) and no, it was not based on skin color. It emphasized that people of certain mentalities and habits were of one specific varna. For instance, someone with a violent temper, who eats lots of meat and drinks alcohol, who is intemperant, and has no respect for moral laws, would be a low-caste fellow, whereas someone who was God-loving, moral, temperant, and observant of social norms to a reasonable extent, would be a high-caste person. Someone born of (a) Brahman (parent) parents may not necessarily be a Brahmin. One has to live the life of a Brahmin to be a brahmin, and likewise live the life of a Kshatriya (royal warrior), Vaishya (merchant, general laity) and shudra (lower-class) to live such lives. It has been frequently argued that there was no Hindu scriptural sanction (from the Vedas) enjoining human intervention and coercion for determining caste.

Furthermore, if one persists in employing the occupational-caste analogy, one can abandon the 'character' model above and argue that there still is no Hindu sanction for enforced caste (such as in abominations like the Dharmashastras). In that sense, any modern society (say, the USA) can be broadly divided into different 'varnas' (or castes) that naturally emerge because of the simple fact of economic stratification. Thus, clergy, evangelists, priests and professors/teachers might generally be categorized as Brahmins, preserving and propagating the rites and knowlege of the community at large. Politicians, army men, government workers and intelligence officers might be Kshatriyas, or warriors and court subjects, attending to the welfare of society. White-collar workers, small-business owners and supervisors would be Vaishyas, and people below the poverty line, forced to do menial work (janitors, etc.) are shudras. Thus, the caste system is mere nomenclature, ideal classifications, not a feudal system controlled by a minority and enforced on people. Caste in today's sense, under either of the two foregoing readings, would indeed be quite contrary to the message and content of the Gita.

Secondly, there were not separate rulers who presided over the writing of the Gita. I'm not saying this from a theological perspective. Scholars from the East and West who have conducted scriptural and formal studies of the makeup and writing of the Gita have confirmed that it is quite consistent in style of its written Sanskrit and that it is highly unlikely that any more than one person authored it. What the 'conflicting' influences were, which were brought together, were the Hindu philosophical schools of Yoga and Samkhya, though the former and latter are respectively viewed much more abstractly in the Gita (as mystic, or rational spiritualism, and the way of knowledge or discriminatory thought). You should read Radhakrishnan's breakdown of the Gita, which is authoratative in any circle (outsider and insider).

Essentially, there are not really any biases, in the sense that the Gita does not really 'take sides' with one prevailing mode of thought to the exclusion of another. In fact, that is why it is a seminal text to philosophical schools that are often wildly opposed to one another. Dualists and nondualists alike refer to the text and draw largely different conclusions about metaphysics and Godhead (or ultimate lack thereof); Gandhi, who was anti-caste system, easily reconciled the teachings of the Gita with his satyagraha philosophy, especially since much of his thought derived from the Gita, in much the same way as I described the caste system as we know it and how it may be viewed in the Gita. I, and most scholars in the field, would have problems with your friend's comments for 1) factually incorrect assumptions, such as that of multiple writers and patrons (there in fact is no evidence that this was a 'patron-presided work) and 2) fallacious a priori definitions of the caste system and what a bias is.

--LordSuryaofShropshire 19:47, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for explaining it in such clear detail. If my confusion is a common one, perhaps your discussion could be included in the article (or a pointer included to separate discussion). I'll have to go through the Gita again with that understanding. Lunkwill 17:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

About: The only text spoken by God.

"It is the only religious text known to have been spoken by God or an incarnation/avatar of God and not by a messenger or Messiah of God."

Shouldn't that be "the only Hindu text", since Jesus' words are considered those of God by Christians? And I'm not sure that the distinction between God and Messiah makes sense in a inter-religious context, if it does at all. --Goethean 15:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe Jesus is supposed to be the son of God. Spundun 05:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I dropped by to read about this sublime book, and I too, think a small attribution or qualification is needed here. "It is considered to be the only known religious text to have been spoken by God or an incarnation/ avatar of God directly." Considered by Hindus? Thanks for the clarification. Just finished it yesterday; wonderful book! Tom Haws 23:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's speaking in the context of Hinduism. If the article doesn't make it clear that it's about Hinduism then it should be made clear somewhere in the beginning, not in this particular sentence. An article about Christianity would certainly say that Jesus is the only god (or son of god or whatever) and an article about scientology would say something similar about itself. Rightfully so.

The fact that it is the only Hindu scripture to have been dictated by an avatar is not very notable, and quite possibly false. I have therefore removed the sentence. --goethean ॐ 20:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Bhagavad gita is a gift to HumanKind. It never says it is for Hindus. None of ancient books in India mentions the word "Hindu". The word is foreign to Hindus themselves. What a pity

---

The article quotes the BG extensively without mentioning which translation is used. I hope that this information can be added soon, because I notices that the different translation differ quite much. Thanks. Andries 21:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I declare the following to wikipedia in the context of my posting relating to Bhagavad Gita:

I owe an apology to all the Hindus because I posted to wikipedia a misleading interpretation (I have not read the Gita commpletely or even partially to any appreciable extent), that used sofware terminology, misinterpreting the shlokas or the content therein, and offending to Hindus and misleading to any reader. I admit that I am not a competent in such matters, therefore I declare my posting as invalid and should be ignored; I herehenceforth shall not entertain any kind of misbehaviour or misinterpretations based on my misinterpretation and for any such misinterpretations I will not be responsible in any way.

---

This screams bias

I've removed the following text for now.

"The most authoritative English translation of the Bhagavad Gita is regarded by many to have been written by AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who claimed that previous English translations were contaminated by individual interpretations. A literal reading of the Bhagavad Gita, according to Prabhupada, clearly establishes bhakti, or devotion to Krishna, as the highest path enunciated by Krishna."

"By many?" That's pretty weasel-ly. By extension, the second sentence is untrustworthy.

I agree. It's bias. deeptrivia (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Considering that he's part of the Parampara, a system described in the Gita for passing down such knowledge, that does give him a higher autority over 'individual interpretations', don't you think? Dwayne Kirkwood

To my knowledge, the removed text is false. Bhaktivedanta's translation is not considered the most accurate or literal. — goethean ॐ 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Source? Dwayne Kirkwood 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me put the question like this: What is the source for the claim that Bhaktivedanta's translation of the Gita is the most accurate? --Deepak|वार्ता 08:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Any source is unreliable depending on what angle you look at it from. However, as stated Bhaktivedanta is part of the Parmpara, a system described in the Gita. It states that (according to Bhaktivedanta's translation) "This supreme science was thus recieved through the chain of disiplic sucession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the sucession was broken, therefore the science as it appears to be lost". I would argue that any teacher in the parmpara system is equally authentic, but according to the book itself, those who are not, are unable to understand the Gita for what it is. Dwayne Kirkwood 18:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any mention in Gita stating that the translations/interpretations done by people in parampara are more authoritative than the rest. Also Gita is open to everyone for interpretation and does not have to follow the parampara route for the interpretations to be accurate. Hence, I tend to disagree that Bhaktivedanta's translation is the most authoritative. --Krishnaaz 13:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is mentioned in verse 4.2: 'evam parampara-praptam...' as quoted above by Dwayne. However, although I personally believe Srila Prabhupada's version to be the most authoritative I've ever read, I still don't think it is correct that this PERSONAL view should be portrayed in the article. To show this view as a generally accepted fact would definitely be against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. So I advise keeping it 'neutral' where possible.

That bhakti is the central focus of the Gita, should be mentioned however, as quite clearly it is a fact. 9.34: 'man-mana bhava mad-bhakto...'

"Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, become My devotee, offer obeisances to Me and worship Me. Being completely absorbed in Me, surely you will come to Me." GourangaUK 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

GourangaUK's edits

I have modified the changes by GouranaUK. The ref to the Hindu Bible is unwarranted since this is not an article on comparative religion. I think the Gita can stand on its own even in the Western world, without support from the Bible. The ref. to the basic gist of the conversation btw Krishna and Arjun is very important from an introductory contextual viewpoint. Hence reintroduced

Pizzadeliveryboy 18:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I take your point on the 'Hindu Bible' reference. I was trying to give a feeling for the Gita's significance to anyone unfamiliar with it, but it's not essential. I've changed the line about Krishna's Divine form to be more in line with the events in chapter 11.

GourangaUK 16:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

meaning of the word

please see Grammatical meaning of the word Bhāgvad Gitā for details.

Pizzadeliveryboy 13:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

A few points: 1) In this instance Bhagavan=Supreme Lord & Gita=Song/poem. I think 'Song of God' is a clear enough translation without getting too complicated and missing the point? 2) Arjuna requests Krishna to show His Universal form, it's not that He has to proove Himself to him. 3) Krishna is referred as Bhagavan (The Supreme Person) throughout the Gita, 'sri bhagavan uvaca' not as one of many 'bhagavats'. Although I realise both words are often used in the same context. Any thoughts on this? GourangaUK 16:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Stating the Bhagavad-gita translation

I think it's important that each quote on the page from the Bhagavad-gita, should state what translation it is from. If someone came and read the page, they could get a weird idea of the philisophy explained if it isn't clear that certain quotes come from certain versions of the Bhagavad-gita.. thoughts? Dwayne Kirkwood 23:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added the exact details of the book, author for few quotes, few of them are taken from the net, and can be easily verified by the links provided next to them. --vineeth 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed link to pirate site

The external link for "Bhagavad-gita Commentaries" led to a site, www.bhagavad-gita.us, that knowingly and persistently bootlegs copyrighted artwork and book-length copyrighted text.

The lion's share of the material on the site, beginning with the opening graphic, continuing with all the artwork in the "Gita in Pictures" section, and culminating in the entire book-length text of "The Bhagavad-gita online," is bootlegged.

The legitimate copyright holder is the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT).

Further information is available from the BBT's rights and permissions department at www.bbt.info.

The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Wikipedia:Copyrights, in Section 4.3, "Linking to copyrighted works."

Cordially,

J. Swami

Trustee, The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust

17 April 2006 (UTC)

implying that Jihad is an unjust war

in Section 1 Background, It would't be right to say that "Gita's war theory is a just war comparable to St. Augustine theory of just war, but different from Jihad or Crusade or other politically aggressive wars". Implying Jihad to be an unjust war can only be a personal opinion.

yes you are right, i am deleting those lines. --vineeth 05:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely the war imagery in the Gita is metaphorical - its about the battlefield of life, isn't it? ThePeg 4.8.2006

No, it most definitely does not imply the same. The word used is "different", not "opposite" or "obverse",which could mean that jihad is unjust. By "different" it means that the war is not with a political purpose. The purpose of a just war, by contrast, is not political. Brihas 15:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Brihas

Move?

I wonder why the page was moved from Bhagavad Gita to The Bhagavad Gita. The articles Bible and Qur'an don't have a definite article in their titles. Therefore I suggest to move the page back to its original location. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 18:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's called Bhagavad Gita not "The Bhagavad Gita". Move it back... Dwayne Kirkwood 18:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel the same way - otherwise we'll have loads of wiki articles all starting with 'The'. It makes no sense. GourangaUK 19:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back but the history didn't come across - any ideas? GourangaUK 19:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please also move the talk page? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why the history didn't move, you might want to get an admin to repair this Dwayne Kirkwood 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Song of Bhagwan vs.Song of God

I'm tempted to agree with Dwayne. - Cribananda 22:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Merriam Webster definition. Bhagavan = God is not only oversimplistic, but wrong and misleading in opinion of many. deeptrivia (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't considering Merriam Webster Dictionary the leading dictionary in translating sanskrit to English. Why? Because it doesn't even have words like "Bhagavan" in there. Infact, it doesn't have Bhagavad or Gita either - only Bhagavad-gita. The most common and accepted translation of Bhagavad-gita is 'Song of God'. A more sensible solution perhaps is if you made "Bhagavad" redirect to Bhagavan, and add "Bhagavad" to "See Also" Dwayne Kirkwood 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is simple, forgive me for putting it in blunt words: "name 'Bhagavad Gita', when translated into English, literally means 'Song of God'" isn't really correct. I agree that's how it is popularly translated in English (other translations being "Lord's song", "Divine song", "Song of the blessed one", etc. I guess for now we can at least remove the "literally" part, because it doesn't give a favorable impression about the Sanskrit competence of wikipedia editors. In the mean time, let me discuss this with some other wikipedians who are good at Sanskrit. deeptrivia (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, here are several Sanskrit dictionaries to play with. deeptrivia (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the word 'literally' should be removed. Dwayne Kirkwood 23:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a definition from a Sanskrit dictionary: [1] deeptrivia (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see how "Song of God" or "Song of the blessed one" or "Lord's Song" are so different in meaning that saying one over the other would reflect the translator's Sanskrit incompetence. After all, the essence is about the same and that is what counts. I would go with:

It is loosely translated into English as "Song of God" or "Song of the Divine"

without a huge loss in meaning. - Cribananda 00:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What about:

 It is loosely translated into English as "Song of God" or "Song of the blessed one"

"Blessed one", apart from being the real translation of bhagavat, is far from meaning "God." Gautama Buddha or Heliodorus, for example, are not considered Gods, but still is considered "the blessed ones" (bhagavat.) IMHO, letting the readers decide whether these different translations vary much in meaning or not will be more appropriate than deciding for them. deeptrivia (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Heliodorus is bhagavata, that's different. Sorry about that. deeptrivia (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"of the divine/holy one" is fair; according to MW, [2] bhagavant- means "glorious, illustrious, divine, adorable, venerable", or "holy" (applied to gods, demigods, and saints), or "the divine or adorable one", a name of Vishnu-Krishna. We are clearly looking at the latter case, i.e. the term is here an epitheton, not a simple adjective. dab (ᛏ) 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr Bachmann, I am in total agreement with you. ;-) GourangaUK 15:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Bhagavan is a term used by Hindus to describe the 3 aspects of the Supreme and Ultimate Reality (I.E. God). Bhagavan means "One Endowed with Unlimited Opulence". Obviously, 'Bhagavad' is from Bhagavan. Knowing this, 'Bhagavad Gita' should be translated as "The Song of the One Endowed with Unlimited Opulence". This is a mouthful, though. When one says "God", one thinks of the Abrahamic God while the God of the Vedas (I.E. Lord Vishnu) is different than the Abrahamic God. To say Song of Bhagavan would confuse many as Bhagavan is one of those words which have a rich meaning that is too hard to explain to the one who has no clue what Bhagavan is. So, I say that 'Bhagavad Gita' should be translated as Song of the Divine, for "Divine" decribes Lord Vishnu while also not making you think of the Abrahamic God and the word "Divine" (and its translations into other languages) requires no explanation as opposed to Bhagavan to the non-Sanskrit speaker. Armyrifle 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Move talk page

I added a move template to this talk page. The article itself was moved a little while ago, but the talk page wasn't. ----Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 23:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Misquote?

The article currently states that Oppenheimer misquoted the Bhagavad Gita. I won't argue over whether he said "I have become death, the shatterer of worlds" or something else (e.g. "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"), but I will argue that what he said isn't a misquote. The original was in Sanskrit. Anything in English will be a translation. It is not self-evident that "have/shatterer" is a better translation than "am/destroyer," though it may be more literal. Unless there is some official translation recognized as the one and true translation, I don't think Oppenheimer's synonymous phrase can be described as a "misquote." I'm going to be bold and change it, but if I am misinformed and there are grounds for labelling that a misquote, please do change it back. ^L_Wizard @ 07:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello LW - You have a point that there is no 'one official translation' ofthe Bhagavad-Gita that everyone accepts - but I've never read a translation wherein Krishna says 'I am become Death'. I'm not sure how it could really be translated that way as 'kala' usually translates to 'time'? Thus it's generally taken as a famous mis-quote within 'Bhagavad-Gita circles'. See the below for an alternative translation giving details of the Sanskrit :

• Chapter 11, Text 32

Best Wishes, GourangaUK 10:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The phrase kSaya-kRt is not under debate – "destroyer" and "shatterer" are both suitable translations, as is "terminator" and many other synonymous words. The phrase kAlo'smi is the focus here. While the word kAla has two meanings, (1) black or dark blue, and (2) time, season etc. the latter is obviously the correct choice. Neither of the two have "death" as a synonym in Monier-Williams, and the context of the statement in the complete verse (bhaviSyanti sarve ye avasthitAH prati-anIkeSu yodhAH - "Shall be in the future, of all who are stationed in both armies, the soldiers.") The word kAla also means "a worm or animalcule generated in the acetous fermentation of milk". Why not add a footnote and explain why it's a misquote. —Raga 16:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Dating

I removed the dating paragraph altogether. Reasons:

1. this article is about the "essence of the Gita", i.e its contents
2. Dating is controversial owing to verbal/oral traditions, authorship & attribution traits in Ancient India, etc.
   • there are multiple controversies within controversies here
   • e.g. date of Mahabharata War, the composition of the epic by Vyasa, date when first "written down" or systematized, whether Gita existed independently of the Mahabharata epic, etc.
3. For believers, it is indeed the Song of the Lord
4. Other similar articles (e.g. "Bible") avoid dates altogether

-- Savyasaachi, 20060709

Hello Savyasaachi - Surely the dating of the Bhagavad Gita is controversial, but doesn't this also make it an important issue to cover in the article, regardless of what happens on other pages?

Maybe there is too much information on this for the introduction and it could be moves elsewhere with a short mention only? What does anyone else think? Best Wishes, GourangaUK 09:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi GourangaUK - Good point. Perhaps we can introduce a section, with links to other related Date sections as well as a general page about Indian timelines. Regards. --Savyasaachi, 20060710

~~ Great. Now I'll have to go elsewhere to read about the dates, (controversial or not). Thanks for removing that info, otherwise I might have actually learned something...purists and pedants all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.244.227 (talk • contribs)

The dating should not be eliminated. This article is not about "the essence of Bhagavad-gita", it's about everything Bhagavad-gita. The introduction should note that dating is disagreed on, and there should be a separate, well-referenced section on dating. (Take advantage of footnotes.)

On dating in articles such as Bible, you'll find that there is, as a matter of fact, a whole separate long article on Dating_the_Bible! It's definitely not a taboo in an encyclopedia. I am recreating a section for dating.

Savyasaachi, your endeavors to edit are appreciated, but please try to avoing removing valid information that has been added. (I notice that, for example, in your "crispening the intro" you did that.)

--Raga 09:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Raga - I did agree that moving the date into a separate section was a good idea, apologies - didn't get around to do it. BTW< the information wasn't really lost - it is in the revision history, and having a champion such as you brought it back, better than before. THe magic of Wikis :-) --Savyasaachi 20060821

Hello Raga, in my opinion the article reads much better now you have added the seperate dating section. The information is important to the text. Regards, ys GourangaUK 10:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. :) The article could also use some actual information on commentaries (instead of just a link). There should also be chapter summaries, and the section on different yogas (especially Karma-yoga) could stick more closely to Gita's views on the theme, and other discussion and description should be in an article of its own. --Raga 17:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the date info. Very helpful. I would love some further info on it's relationship to Buddhism. One can't help but doubt it was written anytime before 500 BC(E), though. Do people literally think it was written around 5561? It would mean that the concepts that are nearly identical to Buddhism survived intact over 3000 years? Highly questionable. A more recent date of 500-50 BC(E) really makes more sense to this humble outsider. It's so much more believable that it was contemporaneous to the Buddha and merely injected into earlier events. Happens in all the other religions, why not this one? ;) (Doesn't alter the writing's important messages any, btw) Quantumbuddha 06:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Quantumbuddha, although your above POV would probably sound very attractive to a follower of Buddha, the fact is that the Bhagavad-Gita promotes bhakti: love of Krishna (God) as the essence of all religion. That's hardly identical to Buddhism which claims there is no external saviour. Regards, GourangaUK 08:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, GourangaUK. I do understand the important differences between the two. What I'm saying is that the things they share in common (a tremendous amount of key points) suggest contemporaneous development, for when in human history has anything remained so intact from the alleged ~5561BC(E) to Buddhism's ~500BC(E)? Note, I know full well it is "merely" a point of view, hence my not stating anything on the main page in this vein. Besides, I'm not expert enough to comment, hence my "asking" and not "telling". One big fat IMHO back at ya. ;) BTW, I'm not a "religious" Buddhist, so my aim is not to claim one is better than the other or so-and-so "invented" such-and-such concept first. However, coming from a Buddhism-interested background, reading the Bhagavad Gita just now, hit me like a ton of bricks, because I read it not knowing the historical details (the time when it was written). If anything, I was suddenly "worried" Buddhism wasn't as "original" as I had thought it was (of course, always knowing it was developed amidst Hindu culture and merely adopting and recrafting certain themes and concepts that were then prevalent). But later I saw that it's time of writing is in dispute, with one estimate being right around the time of Siddhārtha Gautama, which immediately "clicks", IMHO. But again, I'd love more info, one way or another, on the interrelationship (when applicable) between the two topics. ;) - peace and love, Quantumbuddha 09:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning that there have been several scholars who hold that the Gita is not composed by a single author. It was originally a simple dialog where Krishna inspires the dejected Arjuna to do his duty, which was later full blown into a religious text. For instace, "the Gita as it was" (not to be confused with "the Gita as it is") holds such a position. Shvushvu 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is said that 5200 years have gone by since the start of Kaliyuga. Since Mahabharata happened in Dwaparayuga, defintiiely Gita should be more than 5200 years old. --Crazysoul 09:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed link to "Real Bhagavad Gita" site

I've removed the link to "Sowmya's Real Bhagavad Gita Site" because of its use of copyrighted artwork on its "Home" and "Discourses" page. (See the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works.)

If you're the owner of the page and you want to keep using that artwork, please get in touch with the copyright owner, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, and work something out.

Respectfully, O Govinda 12:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence not clear

Per standards, the opening sentence needs to be reworked. It doesn't say what it is, whether it be a sacred book of scripture or a handbook of somekind. Right now it reads:

The Bhagavad Gita (Sanskrit: भगवद् गीता - Bhagavad Gītā) comprises eighteen chapters totaling 701 ...

I'm sure it's clear to those familiar with the subject, but mysterious to those outside "the know." The information currently in the first sentence can go in the new second sentence. I'd do it myself, but I'm not in "the know." — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, much better. Thanks to whoever did the edit(s). :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Oppenheimer sentence is misquoted. It should be "I have become death. The destroyer of worlds"

The word nirvana should not be used

In the section entitled "Scripture of Yoga" there is this sentence: "Yoga's aim (nirvana or moksha) is to escape from the cycle of reincarnation through realization of the ultimate reality." Nirvana is not a vedic or hindu or yogic concept, it is a buddhist concept. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana. So I am removing it. Shiva das 23:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cf. Bhagavadgita 2:72. ==== —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.167.162.42 (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

The phrase 'Brahma-nirvanam' is used four times within the Gita (including verse 2.72 as mentioned above). See 'nirvanam'. This may be an argument for it's re-inclusion in the article? Regards,Gouranga(UK) 11:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Raj Yoga

I am trying to change the Raja Yoga description under Bhagvad Geeta to read as "origin of the nose" instead of "tip of the nose". I believe the word from Bhagvad Geeta is 'Nasikagram'. Which means the beginning of the nose (i.e. its origin) and incorrectly translated by many as the tip of the nose. The origin of the nose is the location of the Ajna chakra (third eye). I have developed this understanding from the following extract from Autobiography of a Yogi - Paramhamsa Yogaananda chapter 16

"Fix one's vision on the end of the nose." This inaccurate interpretation of a Bhagavad Gita stanza,7 widely accepted by Eastern pundits and Western translators, used to arouse Master's droll criticism.

"The path of a yogi is singular enough as it is," he remarked. "Why counsel him that he must also make himself cross-eyed? The true meaning of nasikagram is 'origin of the nose, not 'end of the nose.' The nose begins at the point between the two eyebrows, the seat of spiritual vision."

I believe it would be a great error to mis-translate a text of such immense stature. Many people will be misled by an incorrect translation and would be led astray on their quest. I too had followed the translation most popularly made, which requires the concentration on the tip of the nose. But under my Guru's guidance I learnt that the attention should be fixed at the Ajna chakra (the seat of Soul Wisdom) or the third eye. If you are averse to changing the translation, in the interest of allowing all views to be expressed, we should mutually agree to post it as an alternate translation in parenthesis alongside the original.

Gyanesh75

Hello Gyanesh and thankyou for your input. Please feel free to add this alternate translation into the article if you wish, but without changing the quotation that is already there. Wikipedia is not here to decide which translation is an 'error' and which is 'correct' - It's an encyclopedia. Best Wishes, ys GourangaUK 08:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've since added the reference and link to the article. Regards, GourangaUK 12:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Gouranga, Thanks for allowing the alternate version. Regards Gyanesh.

Are Bibliographic Entries OK?

Some material on the Gita are not available online and have copyrights associated with them. Any objection (or Wikipedia policy) about adding a section of bibliography entries? For instance I would like to add the Title, Author, ISBN#, publisher of the Barbara Stoller-Miller translation as well as the Sargent Sanscrit/English interliner translation among others. What say?

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. If you're asking about adding a section for a list of translations of the Gita that don't appear online, I'm all for the idea. Sayvandelay 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Four Varnas

In regards to recent edits, yes Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita "the four divisions of human society are created by Me" B-Gita 4.13, but then as the creator, surely Krishna is beyond such divisions himself, being "transcendental to this system of the four divisions of human society". It seems largely irrelevant to mention this in the introduction, although Arjun's role as a warrior is obviously essential to the understanding of the situation on the battlefield. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 11:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since then I have added "Krishna explains to Arjuna his duties as a famous warrior and Prince" in order to explain Arjuna's social position. It seems irrelevant to identify Krishna and Arjuna with specific caste labels in the introduction. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Krishna born is a Yadava Kula so he also took birth as per our holy Hindu texts. Caste is a wrong interpretation of Varnas Hindushudra 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Arjuna was a warrior so Kshtriya and Krishna a Shudra Hindushudra 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the Mahabharata and Bhagavata Purana Krishna took birth in a Vaisya family (cow-herds). But either way, how is that of relevance to introductory discussions of the Bhagavad Gita? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 13:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Background is lacking

Currently the background section reads more like an overview, so much so that i'm tempted to change the title. A real background should explain more on the events before hand, the relationship between Krishna and Arjun, some background on the war, etc. Can someone more knowledgable perhaps expand on this idea? Chopper Dave 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point - I'll see if I can put something together as a start point. Have made a few general alterations today, but the background section will take some brain time. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 16:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Where to put this on the mainpage?

It is about Robert Oppenheimer and the influence of Bhagavad-Gita The Gita of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Proceedings of American Philosophical Society, Published 2000

Austerlitz 88.72.24.8 12:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is from Mahatma Gandhi, where to put it? GITA ACCORDING TO GANDHI

Austerlitz 88.72.14.143 18:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just found it, it is already there in External links.

More on this page?

By all means this is a good article, however I think that further detail on specific chapters... is needed. Although there a lot on the forms of Yoga... is stated, a summary of each of the Chapters individually would be excellent - considering the Bhagavad Gita to probably be one of the most famous Smriti texts. Although there are good links to translations given, it would be great if the Wikipedia article as well could be even more detailed Bhaveer 04:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

Why did User:GourangaUK remove the ISKCON labels from the external links? The point of Wikipedia is to inform, not to deceive or advertise. — goethean ॐ 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I could not see the point of the additional labels, especially when one link already gave the author etc... in line with all of the other links on the page. Why single out ISKCON links specifically? Should we include notes on all links by authors who ascribe to a larger movement or organisation? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 16:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In this edit summary, you forgot to mention that you also added yet another ISKCON link to the external links, in addition to the several that are already there and the others that pepper the body of the article. There actually shouldn't be ANY ISKCON links in the external links. You know why? Because there are no less than 19 of them in the references section. This article is very, very heavily slanted to the ISKCON POV, and this needs to be changed. I am ading a POV warning template to the top of the article. — goethean ॐ 15:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Goethean, it's obvious from your tone you have something personally against ISKCON. All I did was split an audio link from one part of the external links to another. Please calm down. I agree that in terms of referencing this article is heavily weighted to using vedabase.net for links. Largely because it's very easily accessible for referencing and because no-one has been bothered to link other sites. It's no big problem, just reference Gita verses from elsewhere. Why scream POV and make personal remarks regarding a movement external to Wikipedia in your edit summaries? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

it's obvious from your tone you have something personally against ISKCON.

I do not. That is a personal attack. Please discuss the article rather than speculating on the personal beliefs of editors. I didn't "scream" POV. I added the POV warning to the article, which you removed 19 minutes later. — goethean ॐ 15:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it strange you accuse me of a personal attack, especially after your summary remarks in [this edit]. If I was incorrect in my analysis then you have my apologies. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 22:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Audio

Can anyone find Sir Edwin Arnold's translation on audio to add. I don't think people generally prefer to download stuff from the internet so please stay clear of that if you can. -I'm Working for Him 17:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Structure of references

I noticed that the article has not got many references to books, which perhaps is why there was no setup of a References section per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout. I have added that standard section and would like to suggest that we adjust the formatting of some of the citations that refer to books to use one of the book templates. I have added one as a sample. It might be interesting to try to polish things up a bit, and perhaps have a copyeditor look at it. Buddhipriya 04:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The 18 yogas

I added a section explaining the traditional "18 yogas" business. If additional citations are need to prove that this exists, let me know, but it can be seen by looking through any Sanskrit copy of the text. I suspect that lack of familiarity with this system is due to the wide variation in English translations, so I gave a few examples of how the source Sanskrit sometimes winds up being unrecognizable in English tranlations. Buddhipriya 05:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Buddhipriya - I'm wondering if the chapter titles are included in the original Sanskrit, or if they are simply add-ons by certain translators at a later date? Surely they have been included to assist in clarifying what is being said within certain sections rather than being part of the original conversation? If this is the case then to describe them as traditional Hindu editions of the Gita seems innapropriate - for me what is classed as 'traditional Hinduism' varies largely depending on the eye of the beholder. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the titles were added as part of the development of the Gita as a separate work. I have been trying to find a citation regarding that, but am still looking. The titles do not appear in the text of the source as given in the Mahabharata. Instead of traditional Hindu perhaps Sanskrit edtions would be more accurate, as the do appear almost universally in the Sanskrit edtions I have. Some of the native commentators such as Sivananda elaborate on the sequence of the eighteen chapters as representing progressive or complementary yogas, etc. I have just double-checked the Sanskrit source as it appears in the Mahabharata and the titles do not appear there, so I will add that fact. I guess we could provide a citation to the full text source for the critical edition of the MBH, but I do not want to be accused of WP:OR. Buddhipriya 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dating of the Gita

The article currently presents some statements that are highly controversial such as "Theories based on archaeoastronomical calculations from passages of the Mahabharata place the incidents upon which the Gita between 5600 and 3100 BCE (varying dates are given according to different calculations). The traditional date reflecting the beliefs of many devotional Hindus places the text in the 4th millennium BC, (3138 BC)." Introduction of this type of material begins to draw this article into the debates on Vedic pseudoscience that are raging on other articles between academics and proponents of certain views that are considered fringe theories by others. I think we need to be aware of the debates regarding fringe theories but we do not need to present them as facts. Some rewording or additional references are needed to put those claims of extreme age into perspective. Buddhipriya 20:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a fundamental confusion between the supposed dates of the events, and the dating of the text. The former is immaterial to the latter, and doesn't belong here at all. rudra 02:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I support Rudra's view that dating of the Mahabharata war is tangential to the subject of dating of the text of the Gita. Can we refer all dating other than dating of text to other articles? Buddhipriya 02:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that the focus is now on dating the text, for which several strong citations can be entered. I will add a couple, but first please note the existing sentence: "Though it is not exactly clear when the Bhagavad Gita was composed, western historians assume a date between 500 and 50 BCE." (Cited by a reference to a web site that claims different dates). I feel that: 1) we can add strong references on the dating, 2) the web site does not match the text of the article, and 3) the web site does not itself cite any WP:RS. After I add better references, may we delete the link to the non-authoritative web site, at least from the dating section? Buddhipriya 21:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following material [3] from the article:

Theories based on archaeoastronomical calculations from passages of the Mahabharata place the incidents surrounding the Gita between 5600 and 3100 BCE (varying dates are given according to different calculations). The traditional date reflecting the beliefs of many devotional Hindus places the text in the 4th millennium BC, (3138 BC or 3102 BC).

In the prior edit to this section, only the refutation of these dates was removed. See: [4] If the issue of the date of the Mahabharata war is to be included in the article, a refutation based on academic sources should accompany the devotee claims in order to ensure that the article as a whole maintains a neutral point of view. Please discuss this issue so we may reach agreement on whether or not this material needs to be included in the article. For prior edits related to this content see: [5]. Buddhipriya 18:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced an amended version of the removed detail. The dating of approx 3000 BC is believed by large number of devotional followers of the Bhagavad Gita and is thus relevant. Without it the dating section becomes POV towards secular belief. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 08:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the dating is disputed, if the subject of dating is to be included in the article, a viewpoint from a WP:RS related to history of India needs to be included to give balance. Various issues related to dating of Indian history are extremely controversial, and the subject of edit wars on other articles. Let us not allow that here. I am sure that you agree with the premise that if a date is disputed, the dispute should represent both sides and present it in a neutral and encyclopedic tone.

Some Christians believe that the Earth wss created relatively recently, but discussions of Creation_science present alternative views. Is there a specific concern with inclusion of information that shows there is dispute over the date? You have previously mentioned that the article until now has largely been sourced from the work of Prabhupada. Is is possible that this relates to some issue that may be raised in that source? Help me understand your point of view on this. Buddhipriya 15:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

a religious belief concerning the age of the text is not in any way a contribution to the debate on this question. If the belief is widely held and thus notable, we can mention it for what it is, a religious belief. If, for example, ISKCON members are urged to believe this, we can mention the belief in a "the Gita and ISKCON" section. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a philological estimate of the text's age. Rough consensus on the actual date is clear: 2nd c. BC, give or take one or two (in extremis, three) centuries. As has been pointed out before, the history of Gupta period speculation on the date of the Mahabharata war is not on-topic in this article. dab (𒁳) 17:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the inclusion of the traditional dating. I object to failure to clearly note that the traditional dating is a religious belief that is not accepted by academic historians. This is an issue of where an issue is controversial, both sides must be presented. Can you help in finding wording that will clarify that this view is contested? I like your suggestion of adding a section to get the ISKCON materials clearly identified. I can provide at least one academic review of the Prabhupada commentary that characterizes it as an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Gita. Prabhupada is clearly notable, and he is also controversial. We need to ensure that a balanced POV is used in the article, which until now has largely been sourced from Prahbhupada. On the other hand, we need to avoid giving undue weight to Prabhupada, who is just one of many oommentators who have distinct views on what the Gita means. In general I think I would lean against creating subsections for particular commentators unless it can be clearly shown that their views are very significant and deserving of separate coverage. I would hold off on creating a new section for him right now on that basis.

An example where Prahbupada's influence can be seen may be in the use of the date 3138 BC, as opposed to the date 3102 BD which is referred to by John Keay, a historian who has examined these traditional datings. Since the religious dating has been discussed (for purposes of disputing them) by Keay, it is clearly notable. But Keay says that dating to "3102 BC sticks in the historical gullet" (Keay, p. 3) which documents that the date is disputed by a WP:RS.</ref>

I also agree that the dating of the Mahabharata war is off-topic for this article. I would support cutting all remarks about the dating and simply referring the reader to the article on Mahabharata for information on historicity. Buddhipriya 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the traditional Aryabhata date is notable, of course. But I object to referring to a "controversy". There is no controversy. We have the venerable Aryabhata date of 3138 BC or what, but this doesn't even enter into a discussion on the age of the text. No controversy. Saying that the Aryabhata date is "controversial" or "contested" would be like saying that there is an astrophysical "controversy" on whether the Sun stopped in mid-heaven for Joshua. Academic reviews of Prabhupada would not embark on verifying the actual credibility of his 3138 BC date, they would discuss him as a religious author in the Gaudiya tradition, and maybe discuss why he favours 3138 over 3102, but it goes without saying that they won't treat the date as a suggestion placing the text in real-life Early Bronze Age India: this is about mythic chronology, not "primary-world" chronology. dab (𒁳) 08:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The dates of approx 3100BC are based on archaeoastronomical calculations as described currently in the article. It is not presented as fact. This is the accepted dating process within the majority of Vaishnava traditions from which ISKCON originates, but obviously this is a highly different to standard western historical methods. Personally I see this as highly relevant given the context of the Bhagavad-Gita as a religious text. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 13:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

of course, this is fully granted. And incidentially, I would be interested in particulars regarding these archaeoastronomical calculations, and where in Aryabhata's work they can be found. dab (𒁳) 14:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the mythical dating is contested is documented by the reference to John Keay, p. 3, who explicitly questions the dating (dating to "3102 BC sticks in the historical gullet") and contrasts it with a dating provided by a historical reference volume produced under the supervision of an Indian historian. This evidence of disagreement with the date by a cited WP:RS was removed from the article, but the religious date was not removed. If one view is included in the article, the other view should also be included in order to maintain a neutral POV. While the issue of dating of the Mahabharata war is off-topic for the issue of dating of the Gita, I do not object to including the religious date if some editors feel it is important to do so. If that date is included, a refutation of the date by an academic historian should be included as well. Another alternative is to remove both dates and refer the reader to the article on Mahabharata for information on the historicity of the war.

Here is a quotation from a second WP:RS (A. L. Bashham) explicitly contesting the dating of 3102. This, with the quote from Keay, establishes that the dating to 3102 BC is contested:

"According to the most popular later tradition the Mahābhārata War took place in 3102 B.C., which in the light of all evidence, is quite impossible. More reasonable is another tradition, placing it in the 15th century B.C., but this is also several centuries too early in the light of our archaeological knowledge. Probably the war took place around the beginning of the 9th century B.C.; such a date seems to fit well with the scanty archaeological remains of the period, and there is some evidence in the Brāmaṇa literature itself to show that it cannot have been much earlier." A. L. Basham. The Wonder That Was India: A Survey of the Culture of the Indian Sub-Continent Before The Coming of the Muslims. Grove Press, New York, 1954, p. 39

In trying to interpret Dab's comment that "There is no controversy" I think what Dab was referring to is that among historians there is no controversy, which is my perception as well. However there is disagreement between historians and some religious figures, and that controvery is noteworthy as evidenced by the two quotes from historians who have challenged the religious dating explicitly.

To ensure that the reader is not confused about dating of the text as opposed to dating of the war, I have set up a more clear arrangement for the text to separate these two concepts. Buddhipriya 16:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Now the dating section reads as heavily point-of-view. Basically it's saying - we think the Gita was added to the Mahabharata at a later date, thus any dates acribed to the Mahabharata are insignificant to dating the text (i.e it's in a different section). There is no argument given to refute this, but instead two quotations which agree with each other to support the theory. Traditional archaeoastronomical calculations are based on the opinion that the Gita was always part of the Mahabharata, i.e it was spoken by a person called Krsna, at Kuruksetra in India, approx 5000 years ago. It is not a seperate issue from this perspective. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

no, no, no: you have to distinguish:

• the date of the Mahabharata war
• the date of the Mahabharata epic (the text)
• the date of the Gita section of the MhB.

Concerning the date of the Mahabharata war, there is maybe some "controversy", comparable to the Historicity of the Iliad. The controversy isn't so much on when was it, but rather on was there ever a historical war that came to form the nucleus of the epic, many centuries later? If there was, we are probably talking about some Mahajanapada war in the 10th to 8th centuries. Nothing more can be said about it. As for dating the text of the MhB: it's a mess. It's an awful accretion of layer upon layer of stuff. The oldest bit may date to the 5th c. BC, the youngest to the 4th century AD. It isn't so much the case that "the Gita is an addition to the MhB", it is rather the case that the MhB pretty much consists of "additions". The Gita isn't particularly early, and it isn't particularly late, and accreted to the body of the MhB maybe in the 2nd c. BC. That's pretty much all that can be said on the topic of textual dating and historicity. It is meaningless to say "the Gita was always part of the MhB", because there was no finished canonical text before the 4th century or so. A statement that would make sense would be that "the Gita was part of the original Bharata (the 24,000 verses nucleus of the MhB)", but as far as I know, that is manifestly not the case. That's all not very interesting or relevant. The interesting part is the impact the text had on later Vaishnavism. It would be very interesting to discuss the 6th century AD calculations regarding the date of the war etc., that's certainly a notable bit of early medieval Indian scholarship, it just doesn't have much to do with the Gita itself, and probably belongs on the Aryabhata article. The 3102 BC date popularly repeated by Vaishna gurus is merely a piece of Gupta era scholarship that somehow stuck around until today. dab (𒁳) 11:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be going a bit off topic for this article, but how much of what is accepted is based on sensible conjecture by historians and how much is from actual historical evidence? Surely no written versions of the text would exist from that far back so it then falls on people's interpretations of which part is older and which is newer? It seems to me that a lot of it is an unknown quantity? :

Such views are many and various, although the general consensus of opinion dates the arrival of the Aryans from Central Europe at approximately 1500 BCE and the Vedas themselves at around 1500-1200 BCE. As Chaudhuri (1979) points out, there is very little evidence to support this particular date for the composition of the Vedas (nor any other date for that matter). Some scholars opt for even earlier dates; for example, Radhakrishnan and Moore (1957) suggest approximate dates of 2500 BCE for the arrival of Aryan culture and 1500 BC E for the composition of the Vedas. Recent discoveries of cities in the Indus Valley have led archaeologists to date Harappan culture at between 3000 and 1500 BCE, and Aryan culture after 1500 BCE (Tharpar, 1966). None of these dates are conclusive, however, and it is well known that the whole process of dating settlements and texts in early India is very difficult. As Tharpar (1966) states, the Painted-Grey Ware found on archaeological sites in the West is still only 'tentatively' associated with the Aryans. In addition, Judah comments:

"The dating of all early Hindu literature is subject to considerable controversy and must be considered tentative. For example, the four traditional Vedas ... represent material that was transmitted orally in archaic Sanskrit for centuries ... Since none of these compilations have manuscripts dating close to their time of origin, dating is risky, and one must depend largely on internal criticism such as changes in language, thought and locale. " (Judah, 1974)

Dating may be inconclusive but few scholars have felt happy to discuss Vedic literature and culture without it. (Dasgupta [1975] and Chaudhuri [1979] try not to speculate, although the latter certainly has opinions on the matter).

I'm not debating what's in the article so much, but would be interested in hearing your opinion? Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 13:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Dab's breakdown of the three issues is the same as my view. The dating of the war -- and even the existence of the war -- is a question of historicity of the events that form the backdrop for the story of the Gita. The second issue is when the text of the Mahabharata was written. Regarding that, it is a compilation of materials, like the Bible, that shows various age strata. Finally, one of the parts of the Mahabharata is the Gita, which some people feel was added later, as the article explains. The idea of late interpolation of the Gita text is not just held by Western academics. Hindus who have looked at this, such as Radhakrishnan, also discuss the historical problems (e.g., The Bhagavad Gita, S. Radhakrishnan, pp. 14-15. These three issues are discussed in multiple WP:RS. These things are generally-known in the field of Gita studies, and if we need to continue to provide additional citations to help give more background on the issues we can do so until the literature is more clearly in view. Because dating is subject to debate, presenting multiple points of view is essential to prevent problems of bias in the article.

I also would like to see a WP:RS supporting any overgeneralization about Vaisnava views, as opposed to ISKCON teachings. I do not believe that Prabhupada represents broad Vaisnava opinion among native adherents. Vaisnavism is a complex of related groups and belief systems, not a monolithic institution. The Gita is also not just a Vaisnava issue. It is one of the greatest scriptures of India and is loved by millions regardless of sectarian affiliation. Some commentators don't even stress the personality of Krishna in the work. Not all Hindus object to the simultaneous use of reason and faith, as the quote from Vivekananda shows. A very similar quote can be added from Radhakrishnan.

Dab, if I understood your comments correctly, the word "controversies" was bad because it implies that there is controversy about the historical facts, which is not true among academics and among some of the Hindu commentators such as Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan. I have rephrased the sentence to remove the word controversies and just note that the difference between the religious view and the historical view has been discussed in the literature. Does that wording change help address your issue? Buddhipriya 14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(by edit conflict) your point on the fuzziness of dating anything in Iron Age India is well taken, GUK, and is reflected in pretty much all of our articles on the topic by the presence of a whole range of centuries as possible dates, as opposed to a figure like "3102". The fact that we cannot fix any text to a decade, or indeed to a century, does however *not* mean that rough chronologies are without value or even controversial. The uncertainty you mention sadly means in most cases that religionists will jump on the very earliest date any scholar is prepared to admit as possible, and then add a couple of centuries, citing the general uncertainty surrounding these dates. Indo-Aryan presence in India before 2000 BC is very unlikely, but by no means impossible (Parpola assumes a first wave for 1900. It this is correct, there is nothing to exclude that the movement didn't start gradually one or two centuries earlier). This doesn't mean that IA presence is at all 'possible' in any rational sense for 2500 or 3100 BC. The earliest bits of the Rigveda may date to 1500, some scholars would even admit that 1700 isn't out of the question. This doesn't mean "the Rigveda was written in 1700 BC", it means that it cannot be ruled out that a few hymn fragments date back to such early times, while the bulk of the text was added half a millennium later. Similarly, the Gita text dates to ca. the 2nd century BC. This doesn't rule out that it, or parts of it, may date to the 3rd, or even 4th c. BC (or then again to the 1st), but it doesn't mean that it could just as well date to the 15th, 18th, 25th or 32nd century BC. dab (𒁳) 15:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think your edits are spot on, thank you Buddhipriya. dab (𒁳) 15:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair points, but one thing in regards to comments from Buddhipriya - it's got nothing to do with Prabhupada giving a personal viewpoint, any Vaishnava who believes the Gita to be a mythological construction written over time is simply a contradiction in terms. For Vaishnava's it's a canonical text. Comentators who don't stress Krishna (as the speaker) are missing the whole point. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

isn't this much like questions on sayings of Jesus? The Christian church had to learn back in the 17th century to make a difference between dogmatic and historical claims (although the current pope seems to want to mix the two together again). Theologians will make a distinction between historical Jesus and dogmatic Jesus, and not be worse Christians for that, just post-Enlightenment Christians. Of course some churches of the American persuasion have never learned the lesson. We may be witnessing similar processes in Hinduism today: I see no fundamental problem with assuming, say, a historical and a dogmatic Buddha, or even a historical vs. dogmatic Krishna. The coucil of Nicea declared Jesus was God, and the Bhagavat Purana declared Krishna as a mahavatara of Vishnu. Both are incidents of dogma or doctrine, detached from the historical individuals living centuries earlier. dab (𒁳) 15:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to study the structure of the article for Bible as an example of a well-developed review of a complex scripture. That article gets into similar issues related to age strata, how the work came to be adopted as important, variations in interpretation, etc. Are there other articles on major scriptures that may be good examples to study simply from the point of view of organization and coverage of topics? Buddhipriya 15:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

this is a good idea: articles on Christian scripture have a much longer history of evolution under controversy on Wikipedia. The Gita and the rise of Vaishnavism have many parallels to the New Testament and the early history of the Christian church (of course, parallels break down at some point). There are similarly entrenched positions of literalism and traditionalism, in particular in American protestantism. I suppose we could learn a lot from the history of related controversies on these topics. dab (𒁳) 15:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna claims in the Gita itself that Krishna is the Supreme God: "Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Narada, Asita, Devala and Vyasa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me." [6], it's not a later doctrine. For a Vaishnava, Krishna is Krishna, and his words are the highest truth simple as that. Om Tat Sat, Gouranga(UK) 15:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that I have no intention of disrespect either for Krishna, who I personally consider to be a manifestation of the divine, or the scripture of the Gita, which I love very deeply. In the course of writing an encyclopedia article, the Wikipedia process involves review of the literature related to a topic. Since the Gita has inspired one of the largest commentorial bodies of literature of any text in history, it is likely that many differences of opinion will be uncovered among the commentators. Let us have this be a discussion about what the major commentators think, not about what we think. One way of approaching the vast range of major commentorial opinion is to classify the commentators by school, which sorts out attitudes about monism versus dualism, and devotionalism versus other influences. There are also studies that mainly examine the historical impact that the Gita had on brahmanic culture and Vedic ritualism, as the Gita espouses a very different approach to Vedic practice than earlier texts. So overall, the importance of devotionalism to Krishna is certainly one important theme that needs to continue to be mentioned. However the article currently does not mention the other themes, which are very important in the general field of Gita studies. So gradually they can be worked in as needed.

Note that the article does not say that the Gita was "written over time". The work that developed over time and which shows major age strata is the Mahabharata, the epic work. That work, of which the Gita amount to around 700 verses, is a compilation of writings from various regions and periods, like the Bible. The Mahabharata contains many standalone sections of which the Gita is just one example. Another example is the Shiva sahasranama, of which two different versions are embedded in the Mahabharata. Buddhipriya 15:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I do assume that for a Vaishna, or at least a Gaudiya Vaishna, Krishna is God, end of discussion. Just as for a Christian, Jesus is God. In the above parallel, the Gita is to the Vaishna what the gospels are to a Christian. Of course, the Gita itself doesn't have "Krishna was born in 3228 BC" any more than Genesis has "Abraham was born in 1812 BC". There can be no debate about beliefs "Krishna is God", and there is no need to debate "Krishna was born in 3228 BC" this qualifies as a 6th century historiographical speculation, not as a core tenet of faith. dab (𒁳) 16:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Content/Concepts discussed

At the moment, the article suggests the Gita is entirely focused on Yoga which I don't think is the case. I remember that other philosophical concepts discussed include (theistic) Saṃkhya and Vedanta, which is obviously related to Yoga. I personally have only translated/read Chapter 3, which is about Krishna saying enjoying the fruits (phala) of one's actions does not imply inaction, which is why Arjun still should fulfil his dharma (duty). The text also discusses other philosophical concepts which are not expressed overtly in the article like reincarnation (though it is briefly mentioned in some Yoga sections) Gizza^{Chat ©} 22:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article could be expanded to add some of the other major themes that are in there. Currently the article has got good coverage for the concept of bhakti, which reflects the sourcing on the article up to this point. There is a completely different spin on the Gita which addresses its role as a revolutionary tipping point in attitudes about Vedic teachings, placing less emphasis on Vedic ritual practices. I assume you are familiar with the "18 yogas" system, since you have read the Sanskrit sources. Some of the key chapters that could be expanded upon in my view include:

• Chapter 18: Moksha Sanyasa Yoga: the bottom line for the Gita in some ways appears at the end, with the concept of Tyaga ("throwing down") and its relationship to Sanyasa (taking of vows, chiefly). The distinction between these ideas appears often preceeding this but peaks in chapter 18.
• Chapter 3: Karma Yoga is connected to traditional ideas about the function of Yagna, which are part of the neo-Vedic redifinition of terms that is done in the Gita.
• Chapter 14: Gunatraya Vibhaga Yoga. Illustrates how the Gita picks up common ideas such as the three gunas and develops them for this context.

Etc. Buddhipriya 22:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently, I have a couple of India/Hindu commentaries of the Gita and only some photocopied sheets of introductory notes from the Western/Academic perspective. It's been a long time since I last read them and unfortunately won't have the time in the near future. Like I have been for the past six months, all I will do probably hang around and comment on the talk page while you guys are actively involved! To be honest, I have very little knowledge outside Chapter 3. on Karma Yoga and a bit on Ch.2, which I learnt as contextual/background information for Ch.3. Gizza^{Chat ©} 23:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

By working together and pooling our resources I am sure we can all make improvements. We can provide commentaries by the carload if need be. :) This article deserves our very best work from as many editors as possible to ensure we cover all the angles well. Just watching to see if changes make any sense is a big help. Buddhipriya 00:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dubious use of Himalayan Academy web site

I just noticed the following sentence which is sourced from the Himalayan Academy web site: "A minority of Hindus, belonging to some Saivite sects, reject the Gita's authority. (reference given for this: A spokesman for this point of view was the late Saivite guru Subramuniyaswami." [7]). I believe this statement reflects a WP:FRINGE viewpoint and I do not think it is worth mentioning in the article. A different bit of unreliable and non-notable bit of trivia was just removed from the page on Ganesha where agreement was reached that the source is dubious. Subramuniya's book claiming that "Lemurian scrolls" support his belief that human origins can be traced to space travel to Earth from the Pleiades millions of years ago brings him into question as a WP:RS. See: [8]. Would it be okay to remove this dubious bit of trivia? Buddhipriya 20:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I had weakened that statement a long time ago. Before it said "all Saivite and Shakta sects," which was absolutely absurd. I agree with the source not being authorative of course. What he claims is the point of view of one sub-sect only and hence is too minor for inclusion. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there is at least some consensus for this, I have deleted the sentence from the article. If someone wants to make a case for inclusion of materials from this source, please chime in. Buddhipriya 16:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dhyana Yoga

I am not aware of any major commentary that claims that Dhyana Yoga is a significant theme in the Gita, but that may be more a sign of my ignorance than anything else. I am wondering why that section is in the article, since it is weakly sourced. Buddhipriya 21:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In following the link to the web page that is the source given in the article, I see that the term Dhyana Yoga was probably picked up because it is the chapter title for Chapter 6, using the system of 18 yogas which have now been explained in the article. So the fact the chapter is titled in this way does not mean that the subject of Dhyana Yoga is necessarily more or less important than any of the other 18 yogas that are mentioned in the traditional chapter titles. But this does clarify how the section may have gotten started. The section on commentators has added material now supporting the customary identification of the "big three" yogas in the Gita as being Karma, Bhakti, and Jnana. Buddhipriya 19:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dhyana-yoga is a name given to the form of meditation described throughout the 6th Chapter of the Gita, specifically verses 6.11 through 6.14, wherein it is given in considerable detail. That being said, I would agree that it is given more as an aside compared the the paths of bhakti, jnana and karma. I do not think it neccessarily orignates from the concept of the 18 yogas. Gouranga(UK) 08:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you agree that the "big three" yogas are distinct, I adjusted the text slightly to move the material for Dhyana Yoga down a bit pending further elaboration. I also moved up the background material and citations for Madhusudana Sarasvati, who established the big three method of organization so there would be some WP:RS for the inclusion of those three as being particularly noteworthy.

There is no question that the practice of meditation is discussed in the passages 6.11-14, and there is no question that the practice of meditation is recommended by Krishna. One way to quantify the prevalence of concepts in the Gita is by reference to word frequency, and concordances to the Gita are sometimes used for that purpose. The word dhyānam, and words that are grammatical variants of that Sanskrit word, occurs in only five verses of the Gita according to Gambhirananda's "Index to Words" in the Gita: 2.62 (used there in the sense of "dwells on" or "thinks of"), 12.6, 12.12, 13.24, 18.52. The Sanskrit text in 6.11-6.14 uses expressions based on the Sanskrit word yuj- or other descriptive phases, but the actual expression dhyana yoga is not used, except in the traditional chapter title as one of the "18 yogas". Translators have adopted a wide range of English equivalents for the passages in 6.11-14, and while they are not passages that employ words based on the same root as dhyanam, they clearly are descriptive of a process of meditation. Buddhipriya 16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia in the influence section

The article now has two unsourced bits of non-notable trivia in the section on Influence beyond India. According to WP:TRIVIA all such trivia must meet the usual guidlines for inclusion on Wikipedia. I do not find these examples notable and have fact tagged them. If someone thinks they should remain in the article would you please cite them or explain their relevance? I may be missing something, as I often do. Buddhipriya 21:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has replied to this question regarding trivia. Unless someone objects, I would like to remove items from the trivia section that are not sourced and which do not seem notable. Is there any concern about this? Buddhipriya 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they do any harm to the article, but would not object to their removal as they don't really add that much either. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 11:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you did not object to their removal, I have taken out the two non-notable trivia items in line with my understanding of WP:TRIVIA. Buddhipriya 16:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Commentaries versus translations

Currently the only reference to commentaries is under the section on translations. I propose that a new section be started for "Commentaries" so that an overview of the variety of these can be given. Note that the great commentaries in India were not translations, as they were also written in Sanskrt. Buddhipriya 22:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita As It Is

Another editor placed a picture of the cover of the Prabhupada commentary on the page, and I have removed the image because I believe it could be considered promotion of that commentary. Until I added the section on commentators, the page was entirely sourced by links to the web site for that Prabhupada commentary. I still feel that the article gives undue weight to his opinions on what the Gita means. I mention this because I want any personal bias of mine to be clearly disclosed. How do other editors feel about this issue? Buddhipriya 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

we could well do without the ubiquitous ISKCON illustrations if we had some historical artwork to show. It doesn't need to be medieval, a painting a 100 years old will suffice. This would have the advantage to add art historical value at the same time. Unfortunately, I find it extremely difficult to locate Indian historical artwork with source identification on the internet. There are countless devotional websites carelessly plastered with artwork, but somehow the merit of identifying the images you are using does not to seem to be recognized widely in these circles. dab (𒁳) 08:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

here [9] [10] I found two rather nice "vishvarupa" images with a traditional look, but I have no idea how to identify them or if they are older than a 100 years. dab (𒁳) 08:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

I object to the removal of sourced content related to dating of the text and war. This was done with no prior discussion. I have reverted the section to the state it was in the last time we debated this matter. Here is the removal I object to: [11] That edit removed two sourced citations, one to Keay, and one to Basham. I understand that there may be redundance between these articles, but removal only of the academic dating is not appropriate. Either all the dating should go, or the balanced academic material needs to remain to offset the religious dating. I would support removal of the entire section with a pointer left to the article on the Mahabharata war if redundancy is considered to be a problem. Buddhipriya 03:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The traditional religious dating should be included due to the nature of the Bhagavad-Gita as a religious text - I would strongly disagree with the entire section being removed. Gouranga(UK) 09:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review removed from hold and passed

•  DoneEliminate all citation tags which have been there since July 2007.</a>

I added 2 refs.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

•  DoneArjuna asks why he should engage in fighting if knowledge is more important than action?

Re word or eliminate question mark for this statment, which seems to be a statement about a question and not an actual question.

changed ? to . IMO the statement is right. Correct me if i am wrong.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This one came up in a microsoft word spell check for a change that it didn't require the question mark.SriMesh | talk 00:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

•  Done'It is optional to use a comma before the and in a list of items or have no comma before the and. Be consistent in the use of the comma or without the comma throughout the article.

The variations of ", and" & "(no comma) and" are in quotes too. Do i change it?????--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave quotations as quoted from original sourceSriMesh | talk 00:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC).

• ' DoneDue to differences in recensions they may be numbered in the full text of the Mahabharata as chapters 6.25 – 42.[1] or as chapters 6.23-40[2] According to the recension of the Gita commented on by Shankaracharya, the number of verses is 700, but there is evidence to show that some old manuscripts had 745 verses

This feels like too much detail for the lead paragraph.

•  DoneSome of the sections do not have a brief blurb of introduction in the lead which should summarize the article, such as the Bhagavad Gita may be read to help achieve the acquirement of Dharma.
•  Done'This image ....Image:Krishna-arjuna-cleanup.jpg... needs fair use rationales for the article page.

Done. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

•  DoneThis image... Image:Bhagavad-Gitas.JPG ... {{Non-free book cover}}

Used "to illustrate an article discussing the book (Bhagavad-Gita) in question" --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

... Need fair use rationales for the article page for example see this image Peter Jennings and how it has used fair use explanation for the featured article on Peter Jennings. See also Non free content. SriMesh | talk 00:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

•  DoneTo improve this article to feature status, it may help to use citation templates for references for more clarity on the source... See also full references if short references are used
• ' DoneSince it is drawn from the Mahabharata, it is a Smṛti text, however referring to it as an Upanishad is intended to give it status comparable to that of śruti, or revealed knowledge.[9]

This should be reworded...perhaps two sentences. Many " it is " in this sentence...

Split sentence.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

•  DoneInfluence of the Bhagavad Gita section has no references at all within, and this section The Scripture of Yoga only contains one reference for a number of paragraphs.

The Scripture of Yoga lead is a summary of the subsections ahead. Please add {{Fact}} tags, where refs are needed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• ' DoneFor the Vedantic schools of Hindu philosophy, it belongs to one of the three foundational texts (Sanskrit: Prasthana Trayi, literally three points of departure)( the other two being the Upanishads and Brahma Sutras).

This sentence ends in two parenthetical statements. Can it be re-worded?

Done.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

•  Done The reference for this statement ...A 2006 report suggests that the Gita is replacing the influence of the "The Art of War" (ascendant in the 1980s and '90s) in the Western business community is of a different format -embedded links- from the other references - all references should be consistent, and best yet would be to use the citation template format.

Changed this reference at Footnote 54 to citation templates style reference rather than just a reference and a URL. This would be best for the other web pages as well.SriMesh | talk 01:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

•  Done'The wikipedia article Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan is referenced for citations 31, 32, and 33. This article has unsourced statements error tags, so may not be reliable.

Reliable citations usually use primary source articles, and wikipedia would be a secondary source article.

The book of Radhakrishnan is cited: "verse 47, Chapter 2-Samkhya theory and Yoga practise, The Bhagavadgita - Radhakrishnan", not the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

•  DoneWhen the same reference is used more than once, just name the reference, and in the footonotes, the citation then appears as 1.a,b,c etc. Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once

Semi-automatic peer review found these MoS issues...

•  Done'Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]

Done. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

•  Done'Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]

Done. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

•  Done'Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.

I dont see the symbols in the headings.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

•  Done'Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
•  DoneThere are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]

This comment wants the sentence with is considered re-worded to not contain...is considered. ie this one...It is considered by many as one of the world's greatest religious and spiritual scriptures.SriMesh | talk 01:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

•  DoneWatch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”

In the same light as above...Use the control F feature to find the word some re-word the sentence without the word some. Continue with the other terms mentioned above.SriMesh | talk 01:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• So in conclusion:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Some tweaks needed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See semi auto above

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   See comments and wikilinks above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   non-free images need fair use rationales

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Good luck with improving this article! On hold. SriMesh

SriMesh | talk 00:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

•  Done I am a little suspicious of web refs 52 [12],

8 [13], 4 [14] and 3 [15] and [16], which i removed. The other WEB sources are Bhaktivedanta VedaBase Network (ISKCON) and Business week, which are reliable.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an awesome fix to the references. Thank you. SriMesh | talk 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)