Talk:Avatar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hinduism template

I think u didnt get wat i just wrote u r putting the pic of dasavatar on top of the article wheras their is a special section for it plus it is a hindu related article, so let the template be on top, that 3RR rule also applies on you115.252.34.64 (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The stable version of this article, for the last year or more, has had the Hinduism template in the lower half of the article. 115.252.34.64 has been editwarring to move it to the top of the article. Before this happens, there should be consensus on where and if the Hinduism template belongs on the article. Since this article is not part of the Hinduism template, which says at the top "Part of a Series on Hinduism", it's arguable whether the template should be here at all. If you look at most of the history or subject articles (as opposed to philosophy) that are in that template, the Hinduism template is lower in the article so a more relevant and encyclopedic photo can be in the article lede. Options are to Keep in the lower part of the article, Remove from the article, or Move it to the lede. Priyanath ^talk 21:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep in the lower part of the article. Priyanath ^talk 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Replace the {{Hinduism}} template with the more specific {{Hindu scriptures}} template, which should then be Place somewhere lower in the article. Images that are directly related to the subject should always get preference over navigational aids that guide the readers to other articles that may interest them; this is similar to the placement of the See also section prescribed in WP:Layout. The templates are not meant to mark the article as a "Hindu related article", which is anyways obvious from the lede sentence. Abecedare (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Corrected. Abecedare (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Avatar" is a Hindu PHILOSOPHY, if u look at the template it covers all Hindu philosophies, hence Hinduism template is well placed on top,Priyanath keeps on putting the "Dasavatar" pic on top, as if it is Dasavatar article.

Their is a seperate section of the article about Dasavatar of Lord Vishnu, that is the place where that pic should be placed and has been done so by me, try to be open minded about the whole article rather than sticking to the point that it has been like that since one year.115.252.47.209 (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep the images at the top and add the template lower down. Three editors have now opined, so stop edit warring. -SpacemanSpiff 09:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have put a strong point, i was never involved in the discussion115.252.47.209 (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

IP-hopping isn't going to get you anywhere, so stop this now. -SpacemanSpiff 09:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What hopping u dont even want to discuss the article now??115.252.47.209 (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You are repeatedly reverting without discussion or listening to others. I have counted six reverts in less than 24 hours. -SpacemanSpiff 09:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar doesnt only mean "Avatars of Vishnu" but Avatars of all other gods like Shiva and Brahma. When u place a pic on top it means it represents the whole article but in this case it doesn't, its a hindu philosophy and so the template should be placed on top.115.252.47.209 (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay this edit war is getting really old. IP editor, we have a policy here on Wikipedia called Don't-give-a-fuckism. It means that there is no logical reason for you to be so adamant about an article being one way. It is clear that the consensus here is against your opinion. As we go by consensus here on the Wiki, please stop reverting a change that really does not matter a whole bunch. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 09:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude i m giving a point here not counting votes, if u want to edit, edit with ur head and heart in right place rather than driven by ur ego115.252.47.209 (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I never tried to dissuade you from "giving a point." My "point" was about your edit warring, not this discussion. By all means, argue for your point, but do it on this talk page, not by repeatedly reverting the same edit. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 09:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

U need to check the history i have been understanding and creative all along but some guys are not even willing to discuss it with me, infact i am the one who started this discussion.115.252.47.209 (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reported the user at AN3. Should be blocked once an admin sees the report. Best not to extend the edit-war any further till then. Abecedare (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course I have checked the history. Again, the process as we do it on Wikipedia is that you can make the edit you want at first. If it gets reverted, you then go to the talk page and wait for a consensus. From there, NOTHING can be placed on the actual article that has to do with your original edit without there being a consensus. This is because any topic for which there is contention cannot be decided by one person who has one opinion when there are others who also are providing points in their case. They have not continued their discussion with you because you have not provided any new argument that they have not already rebutted. Why should they continue talking to someone who keeps on saying the same thing?

Thank you for reporting it. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 10:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well now I am putting a point and one can see how valid it is.115.252.47.209 (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the {{Hinduism}} template back down, as is the consensus in the above discussion (ignoremy above suggestion to replace it with {{Hindu scriptures}} - I don't know what I was thinking!) Abecedare (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Template use is so arbitrary - it might be reasonable to put several others here: {{VishnuAvatars}}, {{Hinduism (compact)}}, {{Hindu deities and texts}}, or even {{Krishna}} which actually has this article linked in the template. I think the horizontal templates are best, since they organize related articles at the bottom, near See Also and Categories. That approach also stymies attempts to use templates as a form of Territorial marking. There should really be a horizontal Hinduism template (not the compact one) for articles that are related to Hinduism but not in the template.</off topic rant> Priyanath ^talk 17:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I just finally noticed that {{VishnuAvatars}} and {{Hinduism (compact)}} are already at the bottom of the article. So much for noticing them when they are placed there! Priyanath ^talk 17:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources for other Avatars besides Vishnu?

Can anyone recommend reliable sources for lists or definitive descriptions of Avatars of Devi, Shiva, etc.? The article is weighted heavily toward Vishnu avatars. The long lists of Vishnu avatars, imo, should probably be merged or just linked to Vishnu and Dasavatar articles. Priyanath ^talk 00:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

While the avatars of Vishnu are the most famous, avatars of Ganesha do exist, see Mudgala Purana. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is a secondary source available, that would be better. Thanks, Priyanath ^talk 18:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, avatars of Murugan are covered in Kandha Puranam (Tamil equivalent -- don't think it's a translation -- of Skanda Purana). I can't say much about sourcing, but you might be able to get some info out of books related to any of the above three. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 18:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

References are available in the article Mudgala Purana (John A. Grimes, Ganapati: Song of the Self, pp. 105-110) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed section about other avatars

• Ganesha (12 avatars list)
• Shiva : Hanuman etc.
• Rulers as avatar of Vishnu like Nepal king
• Saints: alleged avatars of Dattatreya, Shiva, Devi etc. [1], see also to List of avatar claimants --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, and I think most of those topics would be good additions - except for the avatar claimants, which is linked in See Also and has been bizarrely fringey at times. By the way, the reason I condensed the long sentence referenced to Matchett is that some of it wasn't confirmed by checking the reference itself. Her book doesn't even contain the word 'Ganesha', based on searching it in Google Books. Here is the page in Matchett that it seems to be originally sourced to.[2] The sentence in the article should be edited accordingly. Priyanath ^talk 21:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Page Views

The page view statistics from the last few days (since Avatar (2009 film) came out) are interesting. It seems quite a lot of people are suddenly interested in learning more about the original meaning of the term. This article is averaging approx. 104,000 views each day for the last three days,[3] up from a long-term average closer to 10,000. The related pages show that people really are interested in this article. The dab page, Avatar (disambiguation), for example is up to 13,000 each day.[4] And the movie's page, Avatar (2009 film), is up to fewer than 5,000 per day.[5] It's a good excuse to keep improving this article so that it gives so many readers the best information possible. Priyanath ^talk 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct link to Avatar (2009 film) stats [6], the ones stated by Priyanath are to Avatar (film).--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

d'oh. Thanks. But still a good reason to keep improving this article. Priyanath ^talk 03:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Devi's avatars ??? WP:OR???

The references do not use the term "avatar" or "avatara" (incarnation, or descent in English), they say forms (which is closest to the Sanskrit "rupa"). The rupa and avatar are 2 different concepts. The forms are NOT avatars. Is avatar terminology used in Shaktism needs to be examined by references? Removing the section till then. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

McDaniel uses the term 'avatar' for Durga here[7], "As Vishnu incarnates in avatar form, so will Durga....". So Durga qualifies as an avatar by the source, but not the others? Does McDaniel's frequent use of "manifestation" mean 'rupa', or 'avatar'? Certainly there must be other sources that use the specific term 'avatar', since Matchett seems to go to great lengths to state that "The avatars of Vishnu carry greater theological weight than those of Shiva or Devi." What avatars of Devi could she be talking about, if not the 'manifestations' she mentions in the previous sentence? Priyanath ^talk 04:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are reliable sources that refer to "incarnations of Devi", "the Goddess, Devi, can manifest herself in various incarnations, in the same way as the god Vishnu..." [8] [9] [10] While none of them names these incarnations, there must be sources that do. So apparently we just need better sources, or am I missing something? Priyanath ^talk 04:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of you are right in your own ways, and the situation is more complicated/subtle than we would have perhaps preferred. Here are some relevant quotes from Hindu Avatāra and Christian Incarnation: A Comparison, Noel Sheth Philosophy East and West, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 98-125.

Although we do find avataras in Saivism and Saktism, they are not universally accepted in these two tradition. (pg. 98)

Visnu's personified power (sakti), Laksmi, also descends as avataras, for ex- ample as Sita and Radha. (pg 117)

Note that the second quote may well represent a Vaishnava view of Shakti, rather than how she is viewed in Skaktism. And here is a footnote in the paper talking about rupa, avatar etc (unfortunately the original source in German)

Paul Hacker traces the terminological history of the doctrine of avatara in his article "Zur Entwicklung der Avataralehre" (Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud- undOstasiens4 [1960]: 47-70), reprinted in Paul Hacker, Kleine Schriften, ed. Lambert Schmithausen, Glasenapp-Stifftung vol. 15 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1978). He informs us that the earlier words for Visnu's manifestations were rupa, vapus, tanu, and akrti (form); these were followed by the expression pradurbhava (manifestation) (pp. 405-407). The term avatarana first referred to the action of descending, not to the person who descended (p. 417). Simi- larly, even when the word avatara first replaces avatarana, it refers to the action alone and not to the person (pp. 421-422). Avatarana is employed not only for the descent of deities but also in a very peculiar sense, namely the removal of the burden of the earth or, more literally, "making the burden [of the earth] descend" (bharavatarana) (p. 415). Initially, the word avatara was applied to other deities as well, and was not used in reference to every man- ifestation of Visnu. It is only around the sixth century C.E. that the term was reserved primarily for all the descents of Visnu (pp. 409, 424).

The Sheth paper has some interesting material for this article. I may not have time this week to add from it, but if either of you are interested, I can forward it to you. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a feeling it was a matter of nuances in different terminology. Below I'm adding a subsection to collect specific mentions of 'avatar' or 'incarnation' of Devi or Shakti. Priyanath ^talk 05:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, since I was in a hurry before, the origin and the evolution of the term would be very interesting to put here. Yes, I would be interested in the Sheth paper, and might be able to do something later in the week with it here. I'll also look for more comprehensive sources for the different avatars/incarnations/not-manifestations, rather than resorting to piecemeal sourcing of each one, as I'm collecting below. If anyone knows how to get the missing book I mention below, that would help. Thanks, Priyanath ^talk 17:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Found "Studies in Saktism", but will perhaps be able to get it only next year (!). Will look for other sources too, once I get a bit more time. Will be good to expand this article to be more descriptive and less listy. Nice work so far! Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - no hurry... I'm all for less listy also, which I think I mentioned earlier, before I added several lists :-). But I figured that removing the only lists at the time (Vishnu's) would be seen as anti-Vishnu rather than anti-list. The lists should all be merged to their various avatar pages, imo, once the article is expanded. Priyanath ^talk 03:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Specific mentions of 'avatars' or 'incarnations' of Devi

So that they are all in one place for discussion.

• "her manifestation of Mahakali...." "...her avatar of Mahalakshmi...." "her incarnation of Mahasarasvati...." [11]
• "As Vishnu incarnates in avatar form, so will Durga...."[12]
• "the DM only briefly alludes to the incarnation of Devi as Brahmari...."[13]
• "Furthermore, in the Devi Gita, Devi describes her avataras as Sati, daughter of Daksha, and Parvati, daughter of Himavin...." [14]
• "Emphasizing that she is no longer just one of the ten Mahavidyas, the Devi Bhagavata regards her as Mahavidya herself, whose avatars include many earlier members of the standard ten, along with other renowned incarnations of the Goddess."[15]
• "Among these forms are names several of the usual Mahavidyas, plus other incarnations such as Sakhambari and Radkadantika..."(same as previous)
• Possibly the best source, which I can't locate (anyone?), would be "The Incarnations of Devi, as Described in the Devi Bhagavata Purana", which is in the book Studies in Saktism by K. C. Mishra, T. Mishra, and R. K. Mishra.

Priyanath ^talk 05:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Are Mahavidyas avatars or forms (rupa), needs to be checked. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization

Following up on Abecedare's suggestion to make the article more descriptive and less listy, I would like to suggest the removal/merging of all the lists into their respective Avatar articles (Vishnu, Ganesha, etc.), where they are not already in those articles. If we keep the list approach, we will rightfully have to add a list of the 28 avatars of Shiva from the Linga Purana, and the numerous Devi avatars from the Devi Bhagavatam.

Instead of all these lists, there should be sections simply titled "Vishnu", "Ganesha", etc., with a description of the main origin/story of their avatars, and naming and describing a few of the most prominent, such as Krishna and Rama in the Vishnu section. Each section should look much like the "Avatars of Devi" section is starting to look, though with more development. In addition, there should be an "Etymology and usage" section right after the lede, with material taken from the Sheth article excerpted above, and other sources. Priyanath ^talk 06:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your proposed additions and final goal. However, in terms of process, I think at this point we can simply add sourced material to this article; once we have all the raw material in, it would be easy to spin the lists out to more specialized article(s). That way we don't need to worry about the structure and balance of the article, while it is being expanded (for example, due weight would require that the final article have much greater coverage of Vishnu avatars relative to avatars of Shiva, Devi, Ganesha etc, but that need not be the case for the intermediate revisions while the article is being shaped). Abecedare (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly how I was thinking. Priyanath ^talk 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Other kinds of avatars..." section

I've added the {{refimprove|section}} tag to the section because there are no reliable sources provided. Earlier, I had deleted the section after a long search could find not a single reliable, third-party, neutral source per WP:RS, but it's now been added back. I invite others to search for reliable sources also, otherwise that section should be removed or narrowed down to what can legitimately be verified. Priyanath ^talk 05:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The section as it stands is a hodgepodge and needs a cleanup, but I think it aims to address the topic of categories of avatars, which is a notable topic for this article. The Sheth paper has a brief discussion of such categories (pg 99-100), and attributes the basic classification to Pañcaratra - books on that text may be a ripe source for further information. Abecedare (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Add: Sheth cites Introduction to the Pāñcarātra and the Ahirbudhnya saṃhitā, which is fully viewable on google books! Abecedare (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Will look at that book. I noticed that Sheth also classifies different types, but quite differently and more succinctly than the hodge podge that's in the article now. It would likely mean starting over with that section. Priyanath ^talk 06:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The information I have added is well-known. The information is also found in Bhakti Schools of Vedanta, by Swami Tapsyananda, although I don't have a copy of the book with me currently Please take a look at that book, http://www.vedanta.com/store/product75.html The reference to Guna avatars is well known in Gaudiya theology. Links need not merely include books. A well-referenced web site can suffice in some cases. For example, historically, the information found in Western encylopedia sources such as Encarta have been weak so a reference to Encarta alone is incomplete and inadequate. I have done the same with the article, Karma in Hinduism which is substantially my own because most Hindus mistakenly believe that karma is merely a law of cause and effect. So you can trust me. I believe that the avatar article is incomplete without this section.

Raj2004 (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, there should be a deephasis on avatars of Shiva or Ganesh. Their faiths generally don't believe in the avatar concept. When you think of the avatar concept, it is primarily Krishna or Vishnu oriented. The section referring to Narasimha is obviously not believed by followers of Vaishnavism so I am editing it. It needs to have a opposing viewpoint because non-Hindus should not be persuaded to believe that the view of some Shaivites on Narasimha is the prevailing viewpoint.

Raj2004 (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a de-emphasis on Shiva and Ganesh—the article says in multiple places that the avatar concept is mostly Vaishnava. You also must begin using Reliable Sources. If a significant minority view is appropriate to add to the article (such as what only Vaishnavas believe), then it still must be sourced to reliable sources and state who's POV it is. I removed the addition to the section on Shiva because himalayanacademy.com is not a reliable source according to WP:RS. Also, those websites you provide in the "Other kinds..." section do not meet Wikipedia qualifications as reliable sources (gaudiya.com, indiadivine.org, etc.). If you look closely at the article footnotes, you'll see that most of the article (except for the "other avatars..." section) is now sourced to neutral, third-party, reliable sources. Also, please begin using Edit Summaries as a courtesy to your fellow editors. Priyanath ^talk 16:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Raj2004, I see you've already reverted back to including the himalyanacademy.com reference. It is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Please, please, read WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Thanks, Priyanath ^talk 16:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Priyanth, I don't care what some people believe either. You are following your own point of view too. These sources are well-respected. Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami of the Himayalan Academy was a well-respected Saivite scholar. Anybody who knows Shaivism in general knows that Shaivites generally don't believe in avatars. To say otherwise is false, misleading and your own point of view. Your or my own lack of knowledge does not count. Any well-respected site such as Himaylan Academy or Ramakrishna Mission should be adopted. Gaudiya information on gaudiya is correct and verifiable. It presents the same info from Bhakti schools of Vedanta. Please check the book if you are not sure. Unfortunately, I don't have the book with me, or otherwise I would have cleaned up the section using the book.

Thank you.

Raj2004 (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Also you present the cite for Shiva avatars to be " Soifer, Deborah A. (1991). The myths of Narasiṁha and Vāmana: two avatars in cosmological perspective. SUNY Press. pp. 91-92. ISBN 9780791407998. http://books.google.com/books?id=OoFDK_sDGHwC&pg=PA92. " Which Hindu has heard of Deborah Soifer? Deborah Soifer is clearly a non-practicing Hindu. Any Vaishnavite would clearly not believe in the Shaivite theory of Narasimha. More Hindus have heard of Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami than Ms. Soifer????

Raj2004 (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Also you have a bias for Western books, instead of referring to better referenced Indian websites. All good references regardless whether it is a web site should be considered.

Thank you.

Raj2004 (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added some info from Swami Sivananda by citing http://www.dlshq.org/religions/avatara.htm#kinds This is clearly an authoritative source.

Raj2004 (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources expressing the views of a particular spiritual teacher (even one who I have a great deal of respect for) are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standars, except for the personal view of the person making the statement. Also, I want to note that you are now misrepresenting what your sources are stating. Your himalayanacademy.org source[16] says this about Avatar: ""Descent." A God born in a human (or animal) body. A central concept of Shaktism, Smartism and Vaishnavism. " Yet in the article you use this to support the statement "The avatar concept is mainly associated with Vishnu but other deities are said to have avatars, although the concept of avatar is generally not held by most Shaivites." That is misrepresenting what the source states. So I've removed it again. Even if it were accepted by consensus as a reliable source, you can't misrepresent sources in that manner. Priyanath ^talk 20:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No. if you read the site correctly, I refer to the term incarnation: incarnation

From incarnate, "made flesh." The soul's taking on a human body. -- divine incarnation: The concept of avatara. The Supreme Being's (or other Mahadeva's) taking of human birth, generally to reestablish dharma. This doctrine is important to several Hindu sects, notably Vaishnavism, but not held by most Saivites.

See Also: avatara. I will correct the mistake. Also you refer to only a Shaivite pov of view referring to Narasimha, which is clearly not adopted by Vaishnavites.

Raj2004 (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

And the Vishnu section doesn't give the Shaivite POV. Each section appropriately expresses the various views, based on reliable sources. The view from a non-reliable and sectarian website that "followers of Dvaita ... consider the Shiva puranas to be tamasic or false" is an extreme POV that doesn't belong here. Priyanath ^talk 22:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. I modified it a bit. But this view of Narasimha is obviously not believed by Vaishnavite followers. You are not following a neutral point of view; Redtiger said that the shaivite pov of view needs to be neutralized; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raj2004#Karma_in_Hinduism_2;

Thanks for your constructive criticism.

Raj2004 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but a note can equally neutralize POV here, a detailed denial of Shaiva POV in text can be put in Sharabha and Narasimha. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - the note explains it fine, though it would be good to find a reliable source for the statement at some point. Priyanath ^talk 05:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO, Himayalan Academy sites may not meet WP:RS standards. A more relaible reference is needed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing disputed sentence till RS not found: "The concept of avatar is generally not held by most Shaivites. See terms, incarnation and avatar on http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/lexicon/#avatara" --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. I added a more reliable source, the book "Dancing with Shiva," and extracted its terms from the glossary. See, http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/dws_table_of_contents.html and See terms, incarnation and avatar on http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/dws_r9_glossary-G-N.html.</ref>

This book is available on Amazon.

Raj2004 (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't follow this debate over the weekend, but looking at the article editing history, it seems that some editor(s) may have violated WP:3RR. Given that all editors involved on this page are highly experienced, I would expect that any disputes can be resolved through discussion on talkpage, instead of repeated reverts. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather than reverting again I'll put a tag on that non-reliable source, with the hope that a reliable source can be found. Priyanath ^talk 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Priyanath, I am a little puzzled as to why you characterized the book, "Dancing with Siva" an unreliable source. The book is clearly a scholarly book and available on amazon. Please see, http://www.amazon.com/Dancing-Siva-Hinduisms-Contemporary-Catechism/dp/0945497970/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262018064&sr=8-2

By contrast, you don't characterize the Soifer book as unreliable even though no one here has never heard of her? i.e., Soifer, Deborah A. (1991). The myths of Narasiṁha and Vāmana: two avatars in cosmological perspective. SUNY Press. pp. 91-92. ISBN 9780791407998. http://books.google.com/books?id=OoFDK_sDGHwC&pg=PA92. " Which Hindu has heard of Deborah Soifer? Deborah Soifer is clearly a non-practicing Hindu. Any Vaishnavite would clearly not believe in the Shaivite theory of Narasimha. More Hindus have heard of Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami than Ms. Soifer. Some consistency has to be here, and not your own personal bias or animosity towards the Himalayan Academy. Abecedare, can you review his comment? We need a neutral third party to review. Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See Abecedare's comment below about self-published sources. Academic sources published by a University Press are typically reliable. Self-published sources that explain or promote the views of one particular sect are only reliable for the view of that particular sect. Abecedare has a better explanation below. Priyanath ^talk 16:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See my comments below. Academic sources, when it comes to matters relating to Hinduism, are often wrong. Also with religion, you have multiple views. So it would better to characterize it as a view point of a particular sect or person. Raj2004 (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll comment below to keep the discussion in one place. Priyanath ^talk 17:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

---

While the issue of sourcing is being discussed below, can someone clarify what statement in the article is being disputed. If the statement is along the lines of avatars not being central to, or universally accepted in, Saiva tradition, I think we should be able to reliable sources for it. Abecedare (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"not held by most Shaivites" is probably unprovable, since one is making a blanket judgment about the personal and individually held belief of millions of individuals. "Not central to Shaivism" would be accurate and probably sourceable. I've looked without real success, but I'm sure a source could be found. Priyanath ^talk 17:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are two relevant sources. The Sheth paper:

Although we do find avataras in Saivism and Saktism, they are not universally accepted in these two traditions.

and Parrinder, Edward Geoffrey (1982). Avatar and incarnation. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. p. 88. ISBN 0-19-520361-5.

Followers of Siva have occasionally spoken of him as appearing in Avatars. the Linga Purana speaks of a number of these, but they are pale copies of those of Vishnu. Some of the sects of south Indian Saivism claim an avatar of Siva for their founders. Lakulisa, who originated a Saivite philosophy, is said to have been an Aatar of Siva with a staff in his left hand and a citron in his right. His work begins with a dialog of Siva and Parvati, in which Siva relates his Avatar. Other myths tell of his wondrous childhood. Some of the Saivite works say that their doctrines were given by Siva in successive incarnations. But in the main the Avatar doctrine is resrved for followers of Vishnu.

Parrinder cites Dasgupta's History of Indian Philosophy vol V, pp. 7, 155, which we have access to! So the peripheral role of avatars in Saivism should be easy to source. Abecedare (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol, thanks - I was looking for new references. Since the same "do not have universal acceptance" is in the Devi section, I think we can be embarrassed. Priyanath ^talk 18:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Priyanth and Abecedare for adding those academic resources. I knew that avatar is not central to Saivism. I don't have access to the academic sources as you guys have. Raj2004 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Christain Docetism

In my view this comment is not correctly situated in the opening paragraph. The comment about the manifestation more closely resembling docetism in christian theology as distinct from incarnation in mainstream Christology -- is not the most relevant point , while there may be many other theological interpretations of 'manifestation' or 'incarnation' however i think it needs to be placed in a different section to highlight other religious interpretations of the Hindu idea of avatāra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-singularity (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think several editors disagree with you, based on several reverts of the IP editor that keeps trying to remove that altogether. I've moved it back into the lede and provided more references, and also qualified it based on one of the references (Sheth). It's important to the lede, imo, because the conflation with the common western usage of "incarnation" needs to be addressed right from the beginning. Please discuss before reverting again. Priyanath ^talk 16:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean 'some schools' -- some christian schools? Again, i don't see why because some esoteric christian schools misinterpret 'incarnation' as being heretic to mainstream christian beliefs that it is a reason to qualify this in the opening paragraph. Furthermore avatāra is not strictly correct as 'incarnation' a better word is 'manifestation'. Thus the rebuttal on docetism on the word 'incarnation' is even weaker considering its not the correct definition of avatāra! I suggest placing this in a new section on other Theological interpretations -- NOT in the opening paragraph. '

Wiki-singularity (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Short answer to your lead question is 'no'. Read the three reliably sourced references for the full answer, and also for a better understanding of the subject as seen by neutral scholarly third-party Reliable Sources. There are actually many more of them where those three came from, so it isn't a weird minority view. Priyanath ^talk 20:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentences about avatar's analogs in Christianity (and other religions ?) certainly belongs in the lede, But I think it would be fine to place it at the end of the section - not because it is less important, but because it is typical to have "similarities and differences" discussed after the concept itself has been explained. Eventually, of course, we would want a short section in the article discussing the comparisons in greater detail. Abecedare (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with having it later in the lede. I know it's not typical to so quickly address a subject in terms of "Neti neti", but since a predominantly western readership would come with a presupposition about "incarnation" in Christian terms, it does need to be addressed prominently. And it is an issue that seems to be often enough addressed by scholars. Priyanath ^talk 21:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that the comparison with Christian concept of incarnation was placed up-front, in order to define the Hindu concept more finely. But since we are eventually going to need a short section on the analogy anyway, and I assume that such a section would be at the end of the article - we can summarize that (unwritten) section at the end of the lede for now. Ideally, of course, such lede organization issues are best discussed once the article is fleshed out; but since Wiki-singularity has raised the issue, we may as well make the provisional change now and avoid unnecessary revert wars. Abecedare (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the subtler meaning/interpretation of the word should be combined with the Etymology section into Etymology and usage" or somesuch. Priyanath ^talk 21:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Eventually the article needs to have a section explaining the (varying theories of) origins, development, and interpretations of the concept of Avatar (not the word alone). Whether this explanation is combined with the current Etymology section, or split off into Origins and development section(s), will depend upon the length and depth of coverage we can provide. For now, its safe to simply add the material,and worry about placement later (I know, this partially contradicts my previous post on the page :-) ) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wiki-singularity. Christain Docetism is an WP:UNDUE in the lead. Christain Docetism is unnecessary as it creates a jargon link to need to click, to know what it is. I am commenting it out. Link to incarnation explains different views. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it for now into the "Etymology and meaning" section, as discussed above. I still believe there should be a mention in the lede, but for now the fact that it's discussed in the first section will suffice to inform people, imo. Priyanath ^talk 06:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the current place is perfect. Docetism in lead is UNDUE Christian jargon in Hinduism article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that way of thinking is that "Reincarnation" is also Christian jargon, since most/many people coming to this site have a Christian background and understanding of that very Christian-used term. An encyclopedia shouldn't segregate the views of different religions. Instead, we should do a better job of helping people from all backgrounds and religions understand the meaning of this subject. Priyanath ^talk 16:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO, incarnation does the job as incarnation is part of Christian jargon. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Web sites

Some people believe that websites are inferior sources of information. This is not the always the case. Some well-respected encylopedias such as Encarta, have poor sections on Hinduism. Some websites such as those sponsored by Himalayan Academy and Vedanta Press are very good authoritative websites. Judge the information source, rather than the type of medium. Also please don't let your own bias cloud you. Some people may be not be aware of Himaylan Academy but those who know know it to be a reliable source!

Raj2004 (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The books and website by Himalayan Academy are self-published sources, and should not generally be used outside articles about Sivaya Subramuniyaswami or his teachings. The same is also true for the magazine Hinduism Today. While web-sites can be reliable, books published by reputable publishers (especially university and academic presses) and scholarly articles, should almost always be the preferred source for writing wikipedia articles, especially on topics such as this one, which have been extensively covered by secondary sources. Abecedare (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled by your comments. University and academic presses are not always accurate sources on Hinduism; they are often wrong as they are presented by non-practicing non-Hindus. see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Doniger Professor Doniger has made many inaccurate statements about Hinduism. see, http://www.sandeepweb.com/2009/11/25/wendy-doniger-is-a-syndrome/

See also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy

Under your classification, books by the well-respected Ramakrishna Mission (i.e., Vedanta Press) (see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna_Mission) would be an unreliable source given that it is neither an academic nor a university press. The Ramakrishna Mission "self-publishes" books under your definition. Academics, epecially from Western universities, are no more reliable than supposed self-publishing web sites. They are often wrong. Regards, Raj2004 (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. The very first sentence after the lede is "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Self-published sources are not "third-party" and therefore are seldom neutral. When it comes to religion, for example, the purpose of a religious sect's house publisher is to explain and promote their views. Not the views of all Shaivites, or Hindus, or Vaishnavas, to give a few examples. So neutrality is absent. Most self-published sources also don't have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". These are reasons why "third-party" sources are being asked for in this case. Priyanath ^talk 17:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The Himalayan Academy and the Ramakrishna Mission are reliable third party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A university professor also publishes and promotes their own views. They don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. See, Wendy Doniger for example. She promotes the view of sexuality in every Hindu text. Not believed by most Hindus. So I don't understand what is your problem with using Himalyan Academy. Under your definition, no source would be a reliable third party source, as every source has an agenda and even university sources don't have fact-checking procedures. You apparently have not read a commentary on Wendy Doniger, Read http://www.sandeepweb.com/2009/11/25/wendy-doniger-is-a-syndrome/ Raj2004 (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia here, which is a tertiary source and an acdemic undertaking. As such, we are supposed to summarize what the most reputable secondary sources on the subject say, and as an academic project, wikipedia places academic sources at the top of its sourcing hierarchy. That is, we judge sources by the reputation of the publishers, authors, and the particular work, as attested by how other reliable sources cite and review them. Doniger is a highly respected and qualified expert on Hindusim, some of whose writings and ideas are controversial and disputed by other experts - we do take that into account in deciding when and how to cite her, but we base our judgment on scholarly reviews of her work (which are aplenty), rather than what some person(s) with unknown expertise and qualifications writes on some blog (of course, discussion of Doniger is not really relevant to this article)

More pertinent to this article, and to expand upon my post above: academic and university presses are usually held in high regard as scholarly and unbiased sources, but they are not the only sources with a reputation of accuracy and fact-checking. Many commercial presses are good sources too. The Vedanta Press has an obvious conflict-of-interest, when it comes to Ramakrishna and his followers, which should give us pause before using its publications as sources; however, as one can easily check, many of its works are cited and well-reviewed in scholarly literature, and therefore are often reliable sources. Himalayan Press on the other hand, has no such reputation; it was established to propagate a particular strand of orthodox Shaivite philosophy, and while it is known for popularizing Saivism especially in the West, I could find no reviews or citations to any of its publication in JSTOR.

To be very clear: I make no claim that academic sources are "right" or that self-published works by religious teachers are "wrong". That is a judgment irrelevant to writing wikipedia articles; our only concern here is reliability of sources as judged on wikipedia and that is what I have tried to address above. Abecedare (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Unfortunately, when it comes to Hinduism, in some cases, academic sources are non-existent. Sometimes commercial presses such as Vedanta Press, Himalayan Academy and the Divine Life Society (Swami Sivananda) are the only sources. And many times, their publications are not reviewed in scholarly literature. It does not mean that they can't be used in many cases. Nor can they can be always labeled as an unreliable source. For example, the academic literature on Karma in Hinduism is practically non-existent. Only the Divine Life Society and Ramakrishna Mission had books critiquing this topic. There was only one academic book, Dasgupta, Surendranath, A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume V, The Southern Schools of Saivism, on this topic. Hope you understand. As for Wendy Doniger, she may be a professor but her views on Hinduism are bizzare. As that blog commentator Sandeep stated, "There’s an entire cultural, philosophical, and spiritual heritage that cannot be understood merely in theory and bookish learning–it requires living the tradition."

Raj2004 (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for Raj2004 concerns about how we define authoritative sources for subject topic -- i could not imagine a more golden standard for information source Vedanta than from the RamaKrishna Math (Vedanta Press) or Divine Life Society -- we must be careful that with the topic of Hinduism most of the academic research is still conducted outside of India where its at risk of a dry academic rigour applied to it. Wiki-singularity (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really relevant to this article but ... I would be shocked if there weren't extensive scholarly literature on Karma in Hinduism. For example consider Karma and rebirth in classical Indian traditions edited by Wendy Doniger, Karma and rebirth: post classical developments, edited by Ronald Wesley Neufeldt, The doctrine of Karma Yuvraj Krishnan ... all these books are written by experts, published by reputable presses, and well-reviewed in scholarly literature. The sourcing in Karma in Hinduism article can be greatly improved too. Abecedare (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's great! Can you add these sources to the article? With Wendy Doniger, we have to be careful though as she has been said to misrepresent Hinduism. I would really respect the Yuvaraj Krishna reference. It is quite extensive and was published by Motilal Barnasidas, a well-respected Indian publisher. I would lend less credence to Doniger and others. Thanks. Raj2004 (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll add these erefernces to the talk page, but unfortunately won't have the time to edit the article myself. Note that the first two books are edited proceedings of conferences on the subject of Karma and contain articles by several researchers in the area.. The book by Prof. Krishnan is a very good source too; a review in JOAS says, "This remarkable volume collects under one cover the articles comprising Professor Krishan's life work on karma, which constitutes surely the single most thorough exploration of that doctrine in English that has appeared in print to date." I remember citing a Krishnan paper in our article on Ganesha and found his writing to be very lucid and readable. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time either. Hopefully one of the wikipedian editors can look at the Krishnan book. It seems like another fine book from Motilal Barnasidas. Raj2004 (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar (2009 film) link in other uses

The film link is repeated added to the article. IMO, singly out the film is unfair to all other links in Avatar (disambiguation), though Page statistics of Avatar_(2009_film) suggest that it is heavily trafficked. Should we put the link using {{two other uses}} temporarily? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just changed to the double about note. Meant to do that when I reverted earlier, but I forgot and didn't realize until this popped on my watchlist! -SpacemanSpiff 06:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't know what the disambiguation guidelines say about this, but IMO we can use common sense and save a bunch of users an extra click by linking to the film directly, without sacrificing encyclopedicity. Can reevaluate in a few months to see if the link is still needed. Abecedare (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, say after a month after its release. Traffic stats should be checked to take a decision on the issue.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried a similar idea on the Star Trek page when the new film Star Trek (film) came out. But I was shot down. see Talk:Star_Trek/Archive_7#Disambiguation_link. However, for the sake of discussion. see WP:NAMB. Oldag07 (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAMB says you don't put Hats on articles that you can't get to by accident. For example, Avatar (computing) which you can't get to directly by typing Avatar in the search box. So this guideline, is not be applicable to the page without the parenthetical clarifiers like this one. Now, if the proposed move goes through then the hats on this page would no longer be necessary. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

we can keep the separate mention of the film during the film's launch, as there will be much traffic related to that. This will pass in a month or so, and we can remove it again after Christmas. --dab (𒁳) 18:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's now past Christmas, I'm for removing it. Including the film in the hatnote seems to me to go against the spirit of disambiguation policy by unfairly singling out one possible meaning of "Avatar" on recentist grounds; there is no need to have links in that hatnote beyond Avatar (disambiguation), particularly when the meaning in question is covered on that disam page. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Avatar (2009 film) article is still getting over 200,000 views/day, while this page is getting around 60,000 excess views/day over its "normal" traffic. While I agree that we shouldn't mould our article content on grounds of short-term popular use of the term and opposed the proposed article move above; I don't see why we need to inconvenience ~60,000 persons per day, when we can easily accomodate them and no cost to encyclopedicity. I'd suggest that we wait a month or two, for the traffic to settle itself, before removing the hatnote link to the film article. Abecedare (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I second Abecedare's thoughts. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am new to the discussion here, and will be glad to be corrected, but would it be both prudent and academically honest to include a section "The Concept of Avatar in Popular Culture" or something similar at the bottom of the article and keep updating it with the releases of cultural phenomena of the likes of Avatar? I have made a separate suggestion to this effect in the last section of the discussion page with a draft related to the Avatar movie. Thank you for your great work! Cinosaur (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Academic resources

I had said that a blog commentator Sandeep once stated of Western Indologists, "There’s an entire cultural, philosophical, and spiritual heritage that cannot be understood merely in theory and bookish learning; it requires living the tradition." I had seen a reference to Hanuman being labeled an avatar of Shiva in the previous version of this avatar article by referring to this academic resource referenced in footnote 28-Lutgendorf, Philip (2007). Hanuman's tale: the messages of a divine monkey. Oxford University Press US. p. 44. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=fVFC2Nx-LP8C&pg=PT333&dq=avatara+Hanuman&lr=&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=snippet&q=avatara%20%20Shiva&f=false. This is clearly not an universal statement. Many other Hindu followers consider Hanuman to be an avatar of Vayu. So I changed the statement to read: Hanuman who helped Rama - the Vishnu avatar is considered by some to be the eleventh avatar of Rudra (Shiva). Please critically review the academic resource and don't blindly follow the academic. This academic is clearly wrong again! Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's another good source for "Hanuman is sometimes regarded as an avatar of Shiva".[17] So it's clearly not 'wrong', just because you've never heard of this view before. For me, one of the great joys of editing Wikipedia is learning more about other views of Hinduism, Vishnu, Shiva, bhakti, etc. — even when those views are 'different' (not 'wrong') from what I've thought for so many years. And in this case, I had never heard of Hanuman being an avatar of Vayu. I had always understood that he was the son of Vayu, which I believe is the more common (but not necessarily 'right') view. Priyanath ^talk 21:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification. You have to read my statements entirely in context. I didn't mean clearly wrong that way. I will clarify. What I mean to say is that to consider Hanuman as the avatar of Rudra as the absolute universal statement is clearly wrong, as the academic Philip Lutegendorf suggested in the brief excerpt in the link. I had not read the book so I can't say what Yes, Hanuman is most commonly considered to be the son of Vayu but followers of Dvaita consider him also as an avatar of Vayu. You probably did not know of this view either so the statement asserting that Hanuman is an avatar of Vayu is not an erroneous statement just because you did not know of the statement either. I agree that in editing, we learn about other views of Hinduism. Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Raj, you said that "This academic is clearly wrong again!". Can you point to a specific sentence in Prof. Philip Lutgendorf book (not our wikipedia article) that you found to be wrong ? Abecedare (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, the wikipedia article as revised by us is correct. I have not read the entire book but :the website links that was provided make an affirmative universal statement (as if it is accepted :by all Hindus):

for example, pg 293: Since Hanuman is regarded as an avatara of Rudra-Shiva, his own incarnation may be termed as an avatara of an avatara. This suggests an universal belief held by all Hindus, which is not true at all. There seems to be several excerpts from the web links repeating a similar theme.

Please be aware that I have never read that book so the website links may be taken out of context.

Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How does the sentence suggest that the belief is held by all Hindus, especially when one reads the rest of the paragraph, in which the author comments upon how freely and loosely the term avatar is applied in Hinduism ?! Earlier in the book (pg 44) the author even says, "Although Hanuman's later identification as one of the eleven Rudras, or the "eleventh avatara" of Rudra/Shiva, may reflect a Shaiva sectarian claim on an increasingly popular God ...".

I think it behooves us to respect expertise, and trust that a scholar like Philip Lutgendorf who have spent 20+ years of his life studying and teaching this area will know more about the subject than editors and blog writers, whose only claim of knowledge may be "living the tradition" and being bereft of "bookish learning". (You'll note that I never dismissed the views of Sivaya Subramuniyaswami either, because while they may be inappropriate as a source for wikipedia article, they are more noteworthy than an average amateurs'). Sorry about being snarky, but it is tiresome when we start fooling ourselves into believing that browsing the web and editing wikipedia articles, places us at par with actual scholars in the area. We would never accept such claims of innate knowledge in the fields of medicine, physics etc, and I wonder why we implicitly accept that fields of religion, history, or literature are shallow enough to be imbibed through osmosis alone.

Ok, I'll stop my rant now, since this off topic for the page. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your rant is quite on topic for this discussion on sources. An encyclopedia is written by "well-educated, well-informed content experts" — according to the Wikipedia article, but also from what you see with real-life encyclopedias. By its very nature it is written by experts who have studied the subject, rather than people who have lived the subject. In our case, because we are not experts and are writing this encyclopedia, we must use those experts as sources, also known as Reliable Sources. It's ironic that Philip Lutgendorf is the one being questioned here, regarding being wrong on Hanuman. Looking at the books and articles he's written on Ramayana and Hanuman specifically, he's surely one of the world's leading experts on Hanuman. Priyanath ^talk 00:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, please calm down. As I said before, "Please be aware that I have never read that book so the website links may be taken out of context." I don't have access to the book so I only was able to view some selected pages such as pg. 293 viewable on the Google link so I was not aware of the existence of pg. 44.

Also, all academics are not equal. I would trust an Indian academic more because they know the culture and are aware of multiple meanings for a Sanskrit word such as linga, i.e., someone like Professor Yuvraj Krishnan. I would trust an Indian academic of his calibre when it comes to referencing, rather than a Western academic like Wendy Doniger who misconstrues and applies one meaning of a Sanskrit word.

Raj2004 (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I agree with you in using academic sources. But sources in soft areas like religion, unlike science, are so politicized that they are not viewed as credible by many Hindus. Please see organizations such as Hindu American Foundation which vigorously opposes many of these so-called Western experts on Hinduism. This is the reason why many devalue academics on religion, literature, history, etc.

As I said before, all academics are not equal. I would trust an Indian academic more because they know the culture and are aware of multiple meanings for a Sanskrit word such as linga, i.e., someone like Professor Yuvraj Krishnan. I would trust an Indian academic of his calibre when it comes to referencing, rather than a Western academic like Wendy Doniger who misconstrues and applies one meaning of a Sanskrit word. A western academic fixates on the phallic meaning of linga while Hindu scholars such as Swami Sivananda focus on the alternative meanings such as sign, mark, as mentioned in other religious texts.

Raj2004 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not read books by Philip Lutgendorf so I can't say whether he's an acknowledged expert. My gut feeling is that he is. Just being an academic with many books does not make you credible if your interpretation is off base. Wendy Doniger has written many books on Hinduism, but her scholarship has been questioned by many Hindus. Also, as I said before, soft areas like religion, unlike science, are so politicized that they are not viewed as credible by many Hindus.

Raj2004 (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hanuman = Shiva is more of Shaiva thing, rather than a Dvaita, Vaishnava idea. Added a book reference which list all Puranas and Ramayana versions which identify Hanuman with Rudra.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Philip Lutgendorf acknowleges Vayu avatara theory as Dvaita (Madhava) POV. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Other Vaishnava avatars

Where can Avatars of Shesha like Lakshama, Balarama, Patanjali be added? They come under the Vaishnava fold. Also, Lakshmi incarnates as Sita and Radha - is a Vaishnava idea, rather than a Shakta one. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How about creating a List of avatars in Hinduism ? This article can then discuss the significant avatars (and their significance) in text in one single section, instead of having lengthy lists. Abecedare (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested addition of Section "The concept of avatar in popular culture"

Hello. Thank you for the great job you are doing on this page.

May I suggest to include a section entitled "The concept of avatar in popular culture" in the article

• Draft:

Prior to the release of the Avatar film by James Cameron in 2009, a US-based Hindu statesman Rajan Zed expressed concern with the use of the term 'Avatar', which he called "one of the central themes of Hinduism", as the film's title and asked J.Cameron for a disclaimer. [18], [19] His concern was supported by Nevada Clergy Association, [20] Rabbi Jonathan B.Freirich, a Jewish leader in Nevada and California [21] and Satnarayan Maharaj, a Hindu leader in Trinidad and Tobago. [22] However, some other Hindu followers in US considered the film as elucidating on the actual meaning of 'Avatar' rather than sacrilegious. [23] Hindustan Times wrote that “Avatar is a downright misnomer” for the film, but concluded that its message is consistent with the Bhagavad Gita, a sacred book of Hinduism. [24]

I am sure we can also mention the Avatar: The Last Airbender animation movie here and its concept as based on the original Hindu term, but I am not familiar with that film at all. Cinosaur (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The para is more concerned with Avatar_(2009_film) and is better discussed there than here, IMO. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To Redtigerxyz: I agree that the topic has to be discussed there too -- and am on it. But, firstly, Avatar the Movie does not limit the usage of the term 'avatar' in popular culture, and the section will have to cover other usages too, including the future ones as they appear. And secondly, since the term 'Avatar' has gained prominence in modern popular culture in ways other than its original meaning, and since this fact sometimes creates concerns among Hindu believers, like the ones mentioned above, it is relevant for the article here and deserves to be mentioned. Or am I wrong? Cinosaur (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The word has entered common parlance, and the reader is directed to such use through the hat note on the top of the page. However any detailed or list-y discussion of such use would be misplaced in this article, which deals with the concept of avatar in Hinduism. You'll be hard-pressed to find any reliable source on the topic of this article that devotes any/much space on the concept of avatar in popular culture. At best we can add a sentence explaining that the term has been adopted for use in the fields on computing, gaming, comics and movies. Abecedare (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To Abecedare: Thanks for the comment. I agree that "Avatar in popular culture" is a topic not studied well yet, and that us gathering data on it will be more like an original research unfit for a wiki article. Fair enough. That said, it appears to me that reported facts of some Hindu followers' public concerns over the use of 'Avatar' as a movie title does deserve a place here more than anywhere else. I might have formulated the suggestion inaptly‚ but its gist still appears to me relevant for the article here.

As far as popular culture, I second your suggestion for including such an explanatory sentence. Cinosaur (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with the concerns stated above about the draft paragraph, I'm inclined to think a section like this could be a good addition to the article, if framed properly. The concept of incarnation embodied by "Avatar" has been subsumed in many areas of modern culture. See [here] for a New York Times essay on the subject from 2008. This is a reasonable extension of the article, in my opinion. --Nemonoman (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)