| Revision as of 15:03, 26 February 2010 editRegentsPark (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,758 edits →Move to which name: moved← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:44, 26 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,496 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Dashavatara/Archive 2) (bot | ||
| (413 intermediate revisions by 69 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header|search=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Hinduism|vaishnavism=yes|class = start|importance = high}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | |||
| == Evolution and Dasavatara == | |||
| {{WikiProject Hinduism|importance = high}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |counter = 2 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(30d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Dashavatara/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| == From Amar Chitra Katha == | |||
| The content given in this section does not carry enough citations. There is no direct citation to prove that ] suggested the similarities between the evolution and the Avatarams. Subsequent, line summarises the link from ] by Dr. Nitish Priyadarshi. | |||
| This is a children's book published in the 80's as per this book the avatars () of Vishnu are | |||
| The language used in the section is more of POV than facts. Please try to give more citations and original links to the section.] (]) 14:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 1. Matsya | |||
| == Already Exists == | |||
| The content here already exists at ]. Unless more is to be included, is there a need for a separate article? ] (]) 22:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :More is to 'be included'. <span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span> 23:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: This is covered in ] article. Advocate a merge.--] (]) 04:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 2. Kurma | |||
| :::Agree it should be merged,or just redirected. The merge notice was removed without discussion. I am replacing it. It appears that some editors are trying to offer sort of minority views in this article instead of editing the Avatar article. --] (]) 13:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 3. Mohini | |||
| There is more material here that can fit there. I see this article with much more material that can possibly fit in more generic ] article. <span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span> 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 4. Varaha | |||
| :::Editors, we have been hearing for some time that Dasavatar would be an important topic on its own. Right now there is very little to distinguish it from the dasavatar section of ]. I vote to merge the article back into Avatar, and create a separate topic when the section in Dasavatar grows big enough to warrant it. ] (]) 12:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It mainly important because the template heading is the same as the article. The information in the article on ] should not be UNDUE, so variations and different readings and evolution of the concept is better kept in this article. You have already voted Nemonoman, but maybe you can suggest how all different sections can be merged without loosing the essence or quite intricate variations. I will add a little section to the history of it as well and will add main to the top of the article, because its a sub-article. <span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span> 13:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 5. Narasimha | |||
| ::I'll lay off for a while, seeing that you are developing this article. Good luck! --] (]) 01:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 6. Vamana | |||
| == High Importance Rating == | |||
| 7. Parashurama | |||
| Can someone help me understand why ] has just received a HIGH importance rating? The page didn't even exist 4 months ago, and is barely more than an a copy and paste of the Dashavatar section of ]. It's my impression that most topics of high importance have been in existence for a much longer period of time. The Dashavatar section of the Avatar article has not been expanded for many months, and at this point it would be hard to justify breaking it out into a larger article. ] has been the subject of a merge request since late May, and that seems a more reasonable fate than a High importance rating. --] (]) 19:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 8. Rama | |||
| ==The article name and spelling== | |||
| 9. Krishna | |||
| The article name has been changed from Dashavatara to Dasavatara. This is not right according to any recognised consistent transliteration, or is it? ] (]) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Its a ] article of the main ] article and follows the spelling there. Also see: {{find|dasavatara}} | |||
| <span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span> 05:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 10. Kalki | |||
| ::My question was not whether it was sourced or common, it was whether it was a 'good' consistent transliteration. Having looked since at Monier Williams, ten is dazan (according to the transliteration they use there) which would be daśan in IAST and dashan in a simplified form. ] (]) 06:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::In any case, I suggest that this title would be better translated into English; '''The Ten Incarnations of Vishnu'''. ] (]) 06:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That is not how its best know, there is a template that should link here as well the names should be coordinated too. <span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span> 16:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I have come across different variations like for example taking out Mohini and adding Balarama or Buddha to fill the space. | |||
| : Dashavatara reditects here so nothing is lost. There is more than one way to spell Sanskrit terms. It is based on sound and more than one way are right. Incidentally this article is now in three other languages. I do not agree it should be eliminated or is of low importance. It will slowly grow. There is more on this subject. ] (]) 17:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Will remove POV from the title, its Dasavatara or Vishnu and that of Krishna, so the article name should be Dasavatara. <span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span> 22:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I personally have no objection to such a move if there are no other objections. A quick check of shows it is mostly redirects anyway: ] (]) 23:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As per my understanding Balarama is avatar of Anant Nag and Buddha although mentioned in texts is not specified as an avatar of Vishnu whereas Mohini is specified as Vishnu's avatar. | |||
| ==Removing Merge Tag== | |||
| ::I think this article should stay. This is how it looked in May when it was tagged for merger: It has obviously expanded and will continue to expand and is important enough to be in 3 other languages as mentioned above. I am removing the tag to merge as there has been no consensus to merge in 2 and a half months of discussion. ] (]) 12:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : |
] (]) 13:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :Adi Sankara's Prapanchasara follows the Linga Purana which has Balarama and Krishna but not Buddha. | |||
| == Lord Venkateshwara is an Avatara of Lord Vishnu in Kaliyuga.. == | |||
| :This is taken by the majority while Freemasons like Ravi Varma & Amar Chitra Katha Uncle Pai popularised the Buddha version ] (]) 06:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == About dashavatar == | |||
| Lord Venkateshwara is known to be the 9th Avatara of Lord Vishnu. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Actually Dashavatar concept is wrong as per Hindu scriptures, because Narasimha Avatar happened before kurma Avatar, King Bali Chakravarthy present in samudra manthan episode in where Kurma Avatar happened, Bali is grandson of Prahalada, Narasimha Avatar happened in Prahalada time, if Narasimha Avatar happened after kurma Avatar, then how Bali present in samudra manthan who is grandson of Prahalada, so Dashavatar concept is wrong, there are 24 incarnation of God Vishnu as per Vaishnava traditions of Hinduism. | |||
| @] | |||
| @] | |||
| @] ] (]) 13:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm curious, did you bother to actually read the article? Because none of what you've stated refutes the tradition that there are ten major incarnations of Vishnu according to the Puranas as well as mainstream Vaishnavism. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==The "Islamic" avatars of Vishnu!== | |||
| == Infobox image == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| ] god ] (centre) surrounded by his ten major avatars (Krishna-Buddha version). Anticlockwise from top left: ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ] and ]"]] | |||
| I'm referring to this article:https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/Dashavatara_of_Vishnu#In_other_religions | |||
| ] | |||
| Dear @] Can you plz change current image, this image is repeated in two articles, ] and ], why same img for different three article. This img is perfectly suited for Dashavatar, add this one. ] (]) 06:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I understand your proposal, but personally, I wouldn't choose this one. Pale colours, and a lying picture, instead of standing. Maybe await some other responses? Regards, ] - ] 08:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| How can one actually include this section within the 10 avatars of Vishnu? | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| == Balarama == | |||
| The User Joshua Jonathan is consistently PoV pushing the Buddha version forward instead of presenting a neutral picture of the versions. He is also banning many from editing as seen from the log. The earliest depictions of avatars are on the coins of Diodotus. The said user keeps on promoting a 20th century painting instead. ] (]) 04:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I fail to understand the logic here. I'm deleting this section. Please explain why it should be included since: | |||
| # it only represents vague fringe views of Islamists | |||
| # Siddiq Hussain, one of the guys referenced is the leader of a movement called "Deendar Anjuman". | |||
| How can his views be taken seriously? Here for example: | |||
| http://frontierindia.scriptmania.com/FNV13PAGE10.htm | |||
| :I'm not promoting any version; I'm guarding to keep the overview of various versions complete, and counter the believers who are offended by the fact that the Buddha is regarded as an avatar of Vishnu by most traditions. If you don't like that, too bad for you, but you're wasting your time with pov-pushing. ] - ] 04:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| What next? Maybe we could include one more section with the claim that Christ was also one of the avatars of Vishnu along with Abraham and Zoraster! | |||
| ::ditto with you but you seem to promote the buddhist version. In India Buddha is NOT worshipped in any sect as an avatar. Prove this wrong using sources. Also Buddha's teachings are shunned as nastika leave alone being followed even by Vaishnavas | |||
| ::Someone posted Diodotus coins which are a legit ancient source. You pulled them to the gallery along with the Buddha version. Now you want only the Buddha version. | |||
| ::If there should be a rep. image it must be an antique one possibly. ] (]) 05:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Joshua Jonathan threatens and reverts. Not ready for a constructive talk on Agathocles coins ] (]) 07:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And why should an ancient coin be the besg illustration? ] - ] 07:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::"If there should be a rep. image it must be an antique one possibly" | |||
| :::Says who? The Balarama-Buddha version is by far the most common in the present day ] (]) 08:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Bhuddha and Balaram are new == | |||
| I'm deleting this section. Please discuss in the talk page if you think it is worthy of inclusion and substantiate your claims. ] (]) 06:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are references to dasavatara in different religions. However due to structure of Hindu thought, one should understand that some views will not be maintained by a majority of Hindu followers. Section needs to be rewritten. Yes there quite a few movements over the last few centuries, where Muslim views and views of Hindu, as well as Christian views are intermixed in Hindu perspective. There is nothing wrong with that. <span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span> 11:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As a child I always knew Mohini as Vishnu’s avatar which is omitted here. That’s bad. Buddha was never in the picture. Infact he gave up Hinduism due to the social issues it created. Balrama was an avatar of Seshnag. ] (]) 09:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm with Freewit. The inclusion of such ideas as Bahai versions of Avatar speculation, or Muhammad/Kalki speculation, is doubtful. These are the musings of a few individuals, and they might be of value in the Avatar article -- I emphasize '''Might be''' -- but this is about Dasavatar of Vishnu, yes? Scarcely mainstream or even minority Hindu version of Dasavatara: Fringe thinking at best, and not noteworthy enough for the section as written. You've taken the lead in this article, Wikidas, and I will expect you to take this critique seriously and correct it, or we'll end up with me "being bold" and correcting it ''my'' way, which is likely to be much less subtle and much more messy. --] (]) 12:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There was no "Hinduism" at 500 BCE. ] - ] 10:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why would you keep and not include even a reference in this article. I want to see exactly how similar views should be reflected in the article. I have no difficulty in reaching a compromise here, if one is on the plate. <span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span> 13:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I can't be expected to defend the indefensible views of those crazy people. They believe what they believe. All I did was put them in alphabetical order. Those views have relevance -- MAYBE -- to ], not to Dasavatara. If you want me to delete them, I will. | |||
| If we are talking only about the "10 avatars of Vishnu" then what has Islam and the Bahai views to do with Vishnu? This "other religions" view should be removed from the "10 avatars of Vishnu" and perhaps moved to a newer section. This will only end up confusing the laymen out there....] (]) 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;The content should be moved to ] article and wikilinked from this one. <span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span> 06:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Really hate to touch the article, but this has not been deleted "The founders of Bahai faith have accepted a number of prophets as manifestations of God in much of the same way." (despite our discussions). So, I'm deleting it.] (]) 09:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move == | |||
| {{polltop}} move to nondiacritic form <s>for these articles</s> this article. Several alternatives have been presented for this particular article (Dasavatara, Dashavatara) so please pick an appropriate one. --] (]) 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- {{movereq|multiple=yes | |||
| |current1=Daśāvatāra|new1=Dashavatara|current2=Vyavahāra|new2=Vyavahara|current3=Vyākaraṇa|new3=Vyakarana|current4=Bhaṭṭikāvya|new4=Bhattikavya|current5=Iṣṭa-devatā|new5=Ishta-devata|current6=Kaśmir Śaivism|new6=Kashmir Shaivism|current8=Kapāla|new8=Kapala|current9=Jyotiṣa|new9=Jyotisha}} | |||
| --> | |||
| ] → ] — Relisted. ] 17:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] states that "regulated use of diacritics regarding Ireland-related articles – peacefully – before, during and after an extensive dispute on the question of diacritics in 2005, e.g. Inishmore, not Inis Mór; Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich". Similar issues still in ] where ] is preferred to Þórr. The same applies also to Sanskrit diacritics. Removal of diacritics in the article title was implemented in Hinduism-related articles like ], ] and ] in the past. ] <sup> ] </sup> 16:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * ] → ] | |||
| * ] → ] | |||
| * ] → ] | |||
| * ] → ] | |||
| * ] → ] | |||
| * ] → ] | |||
| * ] → ] | |||
| * ] → ] | |||
| * ] → ] | |||
| :: NOTE: The list is not-exhaustive. --] <sup> ] </sup> 16:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * I thought this issue was already extensively discussed, and the consensus arrived at was that except for articles where there is a ''single'' and ''very widespread'' "ASCII spelling" (like ], ], etc., and even ] although it (काली) can be confused with ]), we would use the proper spelling with diacritics. (Thus effectively, though not as a rule, most "popular" articles would be at ASCII titles (] not ]) and "technical" articles would have diacritics.) In particular renaming ] to ] seems entirely pointless; it's a highly technical work having to do with Pāṇini's grammar. (Did you notice that the Irish consensus says "Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich"?) In any case, the ASCII title in every case redirects to the article, so readers can always find them. What would be the point of these moves? ] (]) 17:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: The point is: ] is never spelt Kaśmir or Jyotisha as Jyotiṣa or Dashavatara as Daśāvatāra in ] (not sure about other English; exception: religious "scholar"'s books). Why do we confuse an ] (Sanskrit diacritics) illiterate person with scholarly jargon-type IAST? Why not use not simple English spellings instead? Note: Tomás Ó Fiaich is the name of a person, as in Irish. --] <sup> ] </sup> 18:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Neither Mahabharata or Ramayana is the ''single'' meaning, they are only ''widespread''. Alternate spellings: Mahabharat, Mahabharatha (South India), Mahabharath; Ramayan. Also in response to "What would be the point of these moves?": the answer is same as "why have Shiva not Śiva?" --] <sup> ] </sup> 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' What is the use in modern Indian English? Clearly these terms have a specific connection to India, in which case it is permissable for the articles to be written (and named) in Indian English, as a ]. What do ] written in Indian English use? ] (]) 07:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: I found this newspaper ] article online which uses Dashavatara, not Daśāvatāra. News articles using Jyotish as a first name or as astrology: , Ankush as a first name , Ishta Devata . For Kashmir Shaivism: the name is derived from two words: the region ] (the disputed region between India, Pakistan and China) and the sect ], both articles are non-IAST titles. It may be noted English newspapers, published in India, use Anglicized spellings and almost never IAST (none that I have ever read).--] <sup> ] </sup> 12:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: One can see articles at Times of India: Spirituality site: eg. : non-IAST spellings are used for deity names as well as texts and philosophical concepts.--] <sup> ] </sup> 12:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for that. The case for a move appears to be strengthening. ] (]) 15:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree to the case for renaming it to normal Indian English spelling. However, I don't accept the spelling "Dashavatara". A more closer spelling is Dasavatara. Sh is usually associated with ष and not श. A google search for Dasavathar shows up 61,500 results against 454,000 results for Dasavatar. I don't suggest the South Indian style Dasavatharam since it can confuse with the ] of the same name. ] (]) 06:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| IAST Śiva is Anglicized as Shiva/Shiv (श), NOT Siva. By the same logic, Daśāvatāra should be Dashavatara/Dashavatar. | |||
| * '''Dashavatar''' with 61,700 hits, but ] has already the film article about the ten incarnations and the hits may include film hits too. Ref: . Anyway throughout wikipedia the article names are: Ganesha, Shiva etc. not Ganesh, Shiv, so I suggested Dashavatara. | |||
| * '''Dashavatara''': 37,500 | |||
| * '''Dasavatar''': 455,000 with "Did you mean: Dashavatar", many of these hits are somehow related to the Kamal Hasan starter movie ]. | |||
| * '''Dasavatara''': 52,400 where Daśāvatāra becomes Dasavatara (due to unavailability of diacritics?? or laziness???) like section "Jayadevas Dasavatara Stotra" in this article.--] <sup> ] </sup> 13:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: All Dasavatara also appears in South Indian (Tamil-based) pronunciations, though it is a Sh in Sanskrit. --] <sup> ] </sup> 13:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: "South Indian" is not equivalent to "Tamil", you know. :P All three of Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam have distinct s, ś, and ṣ, as do most Indian languages (though in some, like Bengali, the distinction often disappears when spoken but is still reflected in spelling). Tamil is the only one that uses the same letter for seven different sounds! ] (]) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' unless there is widespread ''general'' English usage of a particular spelling, use the IAST form. This will resolve some of the issues being discussed immediately above as well. — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span> 02:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: It should noted that ] (now FA) has alternate spellings: Ganesh and Ganesa, still the name is in Indian English. Guna, Ishta-devata, Bhattikavya have no alternate spellings (At least any I know). Kashmir Shaivism is an amalgamation of 2 Indian English words. --] <sup> ] </sup> 16:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per proof that ''Indian English'' does not use the diacritics, and that common English in the rest of the English-world usually doesn't use diacritics in any case. ] (]) 06:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' the move to the following name "Dasavatar" ] (]) 10:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''': Dashavatar, and suggest move of Dashavatar to ]. --] <sup> ] </sup> 16:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''Support Dashavatara too''' as per Shreevasta's observation. --] <sup> ] </sup> 12:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose''': Especially the dropping of final 'a's! This is not the place to have a discussion about diacritics in titles in general. For now, I'll just note that whether "Dashavatara" is really a "simple English spelling" (it is impossible to decide how to read it, if one doesn't already know) depends on what the audience is — for a general English-speaking audience that is non-Indian, the most helpful spelling consistent with English orthography might be something like "Thush-aw-uh-tawra", but obviously that would be absurd. Also, note that Google Books has and (and only and without the 'a's). Newspapers etc. are not a proper metric because they often lack the technology for diacritics, are often full of mistakes, and cater to the uh, "lowest common denominator". (To pick a random example that comes to mind, almost every newspaper would print either "Paul Erdos" or "Paul Erdös", but we still have the article at the proper spelling ].) ] (]) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: It should be noted that Hungarian "Paul Erdős" is a proper name and spelt the same in its country of origin, while Daśāvatāra is almost never used in Indian English spellings, as noted Dashavatara/Dashavatar are used.--] <sup> ] </sup> 18:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: has 766 hits. Besides, newspapers like ] or ] don't lack the technology for diacritics -- you'll find plenty of foreign words with diacritics in these newspapers. Also, English newspapers in India don't cater to the "lowest common denominator" -- on the contrary, they cater to the most educated masses. If the diacritics are a part of the language's native script, it's a different thing altogether (as in ]) -- IAST, on the other hand is just one of the several ] schemes, and not some kind of official standard mandated by the Government of India or any other regulatory body. For the wide majority of the Misplaced Pages readers (who are not scholars writing their PhD theses), a non-diacritic spelling is more helpful. As for pronunciation, {{tl|Pronunciation}} suffices. I agree with not dropping the final schwa, though. ] | ] 18:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * Discussion listed on India and Hinduism noticeboard. --] <sup> ] </sup> 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' move to a non-diacritic spelling, preferably Dasavatara. See my comment above. ] | ] 18:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' move to non-diacritic spelling, Dasavatara, per utcursch. Or to Dashavatara. ] (]) 02:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' move to non-diacritic spelling, I'd go a step ahead and say that more ] articles be added to the list. I thought after the "Mahabharat" over ] move, things would organically take their course, I'm glad though that someone has taken the charge to clean things up! Local spellings should always take precedent over non-local usage. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', move to "Dashavatara". --] (]) 05:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{pollbottom}} | |||
| == Move what? == | |||
| I was just about to observe here that the poll has become confusing (most people are voting about this page Daśāvatāra/Dashavatara only), when I see it has been closed, and (mis?)interpreted as consensus to move all articles. I feel there has not been enough discussion about the issue in general. (FWIW, my "oppose" vote above for the general point, and I also support moving ''this'' article.) ] (]) 00:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Though the other articles were not specifically mentioned (and I did think about that), I interpreted the comments as applying to all these articles (i.e., that the non-diacritcal form is preferred). I'll leave it up to you guys to figure out whether the consensus applies to all articles or only to this one. --] (]) 01:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I will create separate move requests. --] <sup> ] </sup> 13:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: When I voted, I meant for this article alone. I think we should not generalise it for all the articles and each topic should be dealt with on a case to case basis. Names like Ramayana, Mahabharatha, Dasavatara, Rama, Krishna, Jyotisha are very common and we need not use diacritcal forms for these. Where there will be names that contain more vowels and are uncommon, say Raja UttAnapAda where diacritcal forms may be used. So my vote to support a Move to Dasavatara is specific to this article. ] (]) 04:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Good point. Though this is rough, let me sketch the argument about diacritics in general. In short, the argument for them is that they are precise and unambiguous (and possibly "professional"), and the argument against them is that they are unfamiliar and confusing. Now, our goal is to be most helpful to the readers, and we must also consider who the readers of a particular article are. It is certainly the case that using diacritics can often clarify many things: for instance, even with only the idea that long vowels have a bar over them — which I had cottoned on to before I knew the entire convention, and which I suspect others would have as well, and in any case takes a moment to get — it is clear that the son of Vasudeva is Vāsudeva, that Rāma is a male name and Ramā a female one, etc. A ] is a sandwich Italian, while Pāṇini is a Sanskrit grammarian. In all these cases, the "ASCII" spelling is not very different; it would simply drop the diacritics. I don't think a few extra ornamental marks greatly discomfit anyone; we tend to simply ignore them, as we do when we read "foreign" words with accents we don't recognise. Where it ''is'' confusing is for letters where the ] letters, stripped of their diacritical marks, actually ''are'' different from the way we would spell it in plain letters: thus श and ष, which would both be written "sha", are denoted by {{IAST|śa}} and {{IAST|ṣa}} respectively, and certainly lends itself to being read as "sa", by those unfamiliar with the conventions. Similarly, च is "cha" in common spellings but is {{IAST|ca}} under the convention, and ऋ, pronounced these days as "ri" in Hindi(etc.) and "ru" in Marathi/Kannada(etc.) is denoted by {{IAST|ṛ}} (no doubt "Krishna" is a much more common spelling than "kṛṣṇa"). For words like these, where the spelling with diacritics is indeed hard to read without prior knowledge, it may be worth using the simpler approximation, but where they do no harm and in fact help in pronunciation (Kapāla v/s Kapala, Guṇa v/s Guna) it is counterproductive to sacrifice the cheaply obtained precision just out of some antagonism towards IAST. The diacritic marks are familiar not just to "scholars writing their PhD theses" but also any amateur (like me) who has ever read a half-scholarly book in English about Sanskrit, or Hinduism, or whatever. | |||
| ::: Secondly, some words are so common that everyone knows how to pronounce them, certainly every learner who might be able to read the diacritics: Shiva, Ramayana, etc. But exactly the same way, there are some words so unfamiliar in popular usage that the readers to whom the article will be most useful would certainly know to read diacritics. Thus, just as we would use ] in articles about sounds or pronunciation even though IPA is orders of magnitude harder to learn, it is only natural to use IAST for topics about the finer points of, say, Sanskrit grammar: it does not seem wise to move Vyākaraṇa → Vyakarana (व्यकरन ≠ व्याकरण), or Bhaṭṭikāvya → Bhattikavya (भत्तिकव्य ≠ भट्टिकाव्य). Note also that the informal convention used in India for transliterating names is not necessarily helpful to an otherwise literate English reader. (BTW, the argument that IAST is "not some kind of official standard mandated by the Government of India or any other regulatory body" is a red herring: it ''is'' the de-facto standard, and even the "official" standards, ] or ], would coincide for almost all articles.) | |||
| ::: (There is of course the argument that "we aim to be a good encyclopedia and we must adopt the most 'professional' conventions" which is too vague to be made, but a weak form is the idea of using the spelling used by the most reliable sources, which frequently turn out to be the one with diacritics.) ] (]) 08:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The thing is even some encyclopaedias like do not use IAST for Bhattikavya. Lets go by case to case basis. --] <sup> ] </sup> 13:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: First one iniated at ]. --] <sup> ] </sup> 13:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| This is absurd. People agree on a move without agreeing ''where'' to move to. IOW, this was really about '']'' the diacritical version. A complete failure to exercise simple common sense, never mind apply previously well-discussed principles. As Shreevatsa correctly pointed out, using the diacritical version ''solves'' the naming problem when a well-known or "standard" English orthographic version does ''not'' exist. That's why we ''do'' have ] and why we ''do not'' have ] and why we need '''Daśāvatāra'''. The ''same'' single principle accounts for the difference. Congratulations. You have created a problem out of thin air. ] (]) 14:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Facts: See ]. Mahābhārata was moved to Mahabharata on 22 July 2009 after a requested move and Mahabharata has an alternate spelling Mahabharat. --] <sup> ] </sup> 16:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Move to which name == | |||
| {{polltop}} moved to Dashavatara. --] (]) 15:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| As per a discussion above, I was starting a vote to select a non-diacritic name for the article. Please leave your sign below your choice using <nowiki># --~~~~</nowiki> format (with or without a rationale). If you want to leave additional comments, please leave in comments section.--] <sup> ] </sup> 13:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ; Dashavatara | |||
| # Since Dashavatara is used most in Google book hits as well as newspapers and considering Shreevatsa's comment about a at the end.--] <sup> ] </sup> 13:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| # Although Dasavatara seems to get a few more hits at books.google.com, this seems like a more accurate representation of the pronunciation. ] | ] 03:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| # Support this one, also inline with Mahabharat''a'', Ramayan''a'' etc., --] (]) 03:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| # Following the original Hindi/] pronunciation. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| # ] (]) 12:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Leave votes for Dashavatara, above this comment --> | |||
| ---- | |||
| ; Dasavatara | |||
| <!-- Leave votes for Dashavatara, above this comment --> | |||
| ---- | |||
| ; Dashavatar | |||
| <!-- Leave votes for Dashavatar, above this comment --> | |||
| ---- | |||
| ; Comments | |||
| My rationale for Dashavatara v/s Dasavatara is: IAST Śiva is Anglicized as Shiva/Shiv (श), NOT Siva. Similarly it is ]/Ganesh which also has a श. By the same logic, Daśāvatāra should be Dashavatara/Dashavatar. ](a) is also used in Indian newspapers and as a Hindu film title. --] <sup> ] </sup> 13:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: It should also be noted that in Google books Daśāvatāra also gets hits for Dasavatara and a "sa" is regarded as स्. --] <sup> ] </sup> 13:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It can be also noted Dashavatara was used in ] till http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:VishnuAvatars&oldid=229012012. --] <sup> ] </sup> 14:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * This move is imperative as, these days it is common to find young children using Hindu term in anglicized ways, we have been used to foreigners doing so. For example they make Rama rhyme with Obama, rather than calm, thus taking away the true magic of the word itself, moreover in case of mantras, a wrong pronunciation dislodges the entire energy pattern....well that's another story.. In short, with correct usage it might be easier for those willing go ahead into the etymology of these words...and to access their essence. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * Note: I traced the title history. This article was originally named: "Dashavatara of Vishnu" on 19 April 2008. It was moved on 22 July 2008, to Dasavatara of Vishnu, then Daśāvatāra. --] <sup> ] </sup> 13:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{pollbottom}} | |||
Latest revision as of 17:44, 26 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dashavatara article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
From Amar Chitra Katha
This is a children's book published in the 80's as per this book the avatars (Dashavatar) of Vishnu are
1. Matsya
2. Kurma
3. Mohini
4. Varaha
5. Narasimha
6. Vamana
7. Parashurama
8. Rama
9. Krishna
10. Kalki
I have come across different variations like for example taking out Mohini and adding Balarama or Buddha to fill the space.
As per my understanding Balarama is avatar of Anant Nag and Buddha although mentioned in texts is not specified as an avatar of Vishnu whereas Mohini is specified as Vishnu's avatar.
49.207.5.35 (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Adi Sankara's Prapanchasara follows the Linga Purana which has Balarama and Krishna but not Buddha.
- This is taken by the majority while Freemasons like Ravi Varma & Amar Chitra Katha Uncle Pai popularised the Buddha version 2001:4490:48B:4134:0:0:0:1 (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
About dashavatar
Actually Dashavatar concept is wrong as per Hindu scriptures, because Narasimha Avatar happened before kurma Avatar, King Bali Chakravarthy present in samudra manthan episode in where Kurma Avatar happened, Bali is grandson of Prahalada, Narasimha Avatar happened in Prahalada time, if Narasimha Avatar happened after kurma Avatar, then how Bali present in samudra manthan who is grandson of Prahalada, so Dashavatar concept is wrong, there are 24 incarnation of God Vishnu as per Vaishnava traditions of Hinduism. @Chronikhiles @Chariotrider555 @Classicwiki 2409:4071:248C:F6A2:24D2:5EF0:29FA:84A (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm curious, did you bother to actually read the article? Because none of what you've stated refutes the tradition that there are ten major incarnations of Vishnu according to the Puranas as well as mainstream Vaishnavism. Chronikhiles 14:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Infobox image
Dear @Joshua Jonathan Can you plz change current image, this image is repeated in two articles, Avatar and Vaishnavism, why same img for different three article. This img is perfectly suited for Dashavatar, add this one. Naanu neenu (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your proposal, but personally, I wouldn't choose this one. Pale colours, and a lying picture, instead of standing. Maybe await some other responses? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Balarama
The User Joshua Jonathan is consistently PoV pushing the Buddha version forward instead of presenting a neutral picture of the versions. He is also banning many from editing as seen from the log. The earliest depictions of avatars are on the coins of Diodotus. The said user keeps on promoting a 20th century painting instead. Uriiix (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not promoting any version; I'm guarding to keep the overview of various versions complete, and counter the believers who are offended by the fact that the Buddha is regarded as an avatar of Vishnu by most traditions. If you don't like that, too bad for you, but you're wasting your time with pov-pushing. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- ditto with you but you seem to promote the buddhist version. In India Buddha is NOT worshipped in any sect as an avatar. Prove this wrong using sources. Also Buddha's teachings are shunned as nastika leave alone being followed even by Vaishnavas
- Someone posted Diodotus coins which are a legit ancient source. You pulled them to the gallery along with the Buddha version. Now you want only the Buddha version.
- If there should be a rep. image it must be an antique one possibly. Uriiix (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Joshua Jonathan threatens and reverts. Not ready for a constructive talk on Agathocles coins Uriiix (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- And why should an ancient coin be the besg illustration? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- "If there should be a rep. image it must be an antique one possibly"
- Says who? The Balarama-Buddha version is by far the most common in the present day Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Joshua Jonathan threatens and reverts. Not ready for a constructive talk on Agathocles coins Uriiix (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Bhuddha and Balaram are new
As a child I always knew Mohini as Vishnu’s avatar which is omitted here. That’s bad. Buddha was never in the picture. Infact he gave up Hinduism due to the social issues it created. Balrama was an avatar of Seshnag. Srk vijay (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- There was no "Hinduism" at 500 BCE. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)