Talk:Basava

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Decided to do this merge. As someone who knows nothing about this subject I can say I learnt something and I hope to have ironed out some of the POV. Although some people more knowledgable should read over it. MeltBanana 00:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

(above heading added on 2 April 2006) I think the article is pretty good now. I'd like to see it renamed, without the 'Lord' bit. He is usually called just Basava, or sometimes Basavanna. Imc 10:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He was lord only not necessary to remove Lord Word , i think so...,

The use of "Lord" runs contrary to the way we've named South Asian saints. For example, we use Gautama Buddha, not "Lord Buddha". Similarly, we have Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva, and Mahavira, all without "Lord" prefixed. It seems logical that we do the same for Basavanna. -- Arvind 23:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move Septentrionalis 05:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to conform with the naming policies generally followed in South Asia-related articles. -- Arvind 16:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

you have mentioned that "Basava's path later gave birth to a new religion (or "Sampradaya") called Lingavanta Dharma or Lingayata"

for your kind information this is wroung, "lingayata" religion was there before the birth of basavana, i migratted fro bramin comminity to lingayath comminity. 

  -- Dear why you migrated from Bramin to lingayath? what was the logic? or that was just trial?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.209.6 (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please correct after verification ...

Etymology of "Basava"[edit]

  • 'Basava' being derived from sanskrit Vrshabha need to be mentioned. Ramashray (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

amazing article[edit]

thanks for such an amazing and informative article. --Onef9day Talk! 15:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be explained in English[edit]

First of all Basaveshwara is the only proponent of rational practice of pranavidya(praanalinga saadhana or jangamaaradhane or ishwarapranidhaana)as an entry point to absolute transcendence. His terms of practice are knowing that praana/jangama alone is the perceivable level of existence of God's consciousness. He observed himself to be an earnest believer of the existence of ishwara perceivably only in prana as consciousness of the chaitanya-shakti(linga). His vachana-"Chhala beku ... Linga-Jangama ondemba..." makes one understand this fact.

This isn't really English. I'd try to rewrite it if I knew what it meant. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 09:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why ignore sources, why change the date of birth/death?[edit]

@Vishwanathkore: Have you looked at the cited Carl Olson source? The source clearly states 1105-1167 on page 239, why are you revising it and edit warring over this? Any concerns with the Olson source? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basava. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blog-like unsourced / non-RS edits[edit]

@Itnilesh: I have reverted your edits because they are unsourced and blog-like. Wikipedia is not a crowd-sourced encyclopedia or blogs. Please see WP:RS, do not remove sourced content or sources. You are welcome to summarize content from reliable sources, per wiki's content policies and guidelines. If you have concerns, please discuss it on this talk page per WP:BRD. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Itnilesh: This edit where you removed a lot of scholarly sources and the included comment by you is not helpful: "Removing misinformation because I belongs this religion and i know from childhood what i am following". Please do not mass remove WP:RS from this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sarah Welch Please read all publication to understand philosophy . All line i had written were correct . Is it mistake to say protestant moved away from priestly class ?? then why not we say basavanna moved away from traditional foolish practices of Hinduism ? Bassanna has no connection Vedic philosophy .

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=GRTDAgAAQBAJ&pg=PP10&dq=basanna+philosophy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK5dez_IzRAhWGro8KHZobDQcQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=basanna%20philosophy&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itnilesh (talk • contribs) 14:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another book

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ixSIAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT2&dq=basaveshwara&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRxbvBgo3RAhULro8KHWyhDpMQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=basaveshwara&f=false


You need to watch following movies made in local language , I can tell in Kannada language you can not understand . This has annotations in english first understand philosophy . 1959 movie in Kannada https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6wHMFAKe8k&t=4s

Kannada movie published by Lingayat trust in Karnataka

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5W9qKl5mPc&t=299s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY1pCymSmX0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfvmhx-D1e4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZvswA-serI

Current page completely misleading and some Vedic fanatic has added that it has vedic roots - it is completely false .

Hope wikipedia reflect what exact information and not miss information .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Itnilesh (talk • contribs)

@Itnilesh: I have struck out inappropriate language above. Please do not label, stereotype or attack Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, or any living community/group/person on this talk page or anywhere else in wikipedia. This talk page is not a forum or blog. Please see WP:TPNO and WP:TALK. On the link you just attached, once again, please see WP:RS. A non-peer reviewed publication, a self published book, blogs, youtube, etc are not acceptable sources in this or any other wikipedia article. Nor are your personal views / opinions / prejudice / wisdom acceptable in this article. Please explain why you deleted scholarly sources such as those published by Princeton University Press, Rutgers University Press etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Itnilesh: I have reverted your edits again for the above reasons. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Shiva / Hindu mention[edit]

@2405:204:5680:46e:b4d4:54f8:c940:3e70: Welcome to wikipedia. Please see WP:V and WP:RS content guidelines. The sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica cited in the article and the lead state Shiva and Hindu, why are you removing it? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sources[edit]

@106.206.18.178: Welcome to wikipedia, please do not edit war. Why are you removing reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica? Please explain your concerns. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the latest research and controversy, Britannica entry is outdated.
[[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.18.178 (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Britannica is a good recent RS. That newspaper link you give is not denying what Encyclopedia Britannica has published. Further your link is a 2008 oped/blog in a newspaper. It is not RS for this article. Newspapers are okay source for news, but not okay elsewhere. See this note by an admin:
Newspapers as sources in wikipedia... when they are ok, when they are not
Journalists virtually never have scholarly training in history/anthropology/ethnography/etc. — they're generalists as far as this kind of thing goes, not knowing more than what's needed for background purposes, and as such we mustn't consider them reliable sources for such fields. Exceptions can exist, of course, and we can't discount a journalist merely because of his job (e.g. he could be an avocational anthropologist so dedicated to the field that he's a member of a learned society), but even then we should only trust his writings if they've gotten reviewed by other experts; the most scholarly journalist will have his newspaper writeups reviewed by nobody except the newspaper's editors, whom again we can trust to know a lot about news reporting but we can't trust to know much of anything about "olds" reporting. We can take newspaper reports as authoritative if we're writing a middle school report for our teachers, but encyclopedia writing demands better sources: whether they're written by professional academics, journalists with a lot of experience in scholarly work, or anyone else, they need to have gone through a scholarly review process. (...) – Nyttend
Any other concerns? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ms Sarah Welch (talk) I guess you don't know the controversy going on here in the land of Basava, his followers are proclaiming he started new religion called Lingayat and asking for government to recognize the same. So when there is controversy whether he is Hindu or not and he himself shunned being Hindu, there is no need to quote him as Hindu philosopher. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.18.178 (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

106.206.18.178: Blogs, advocacy groups and newspapers have their biases / agenda / paid propaganda / disinformation campaigns. They can allege anything, with or without prejudice, given their freedom of speech rights. They can call Basava a non-Hindu / Hindu / Animist / Shiva-hater / Shiva-worshipper / migrant from Antarctica / Martian / Christian / Polynesian / whatever. Wikipedia's WP:RS and other content guidelines state that we should not rely on such questionable sources, such opinions, such disinformation campaigns. We should try to rely on peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Multiple such high-quality scholarly sources state Basava believed in Shiva bhakti, was a Hindu, etc as summarized in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please fix the use of different names in this article[edit]

What's he called in English sources? Doug Weller talk 19:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert extra lines from Introduction[edit]

Why?[edit]

Hi. I have a question about your reverting the extra lines from Introduction. I mentioned with many citations that :

Basavanna is considered by many as India’s ‘First Free Thinker’.[1][2][3][4]

Many thinkers,authors and scholars have acknowledged Basavanna as “Martin Luther of India”[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12].

References

  1. ^ "Full text of "The Land Of The Lingam By Arthur Miles"". archive.org. Retrieved 2018-03-08.
  2. ^ "Basavanna: India's first free thinker - Bangalore Mirror -". Bangalore Mirror. Retrieved 2018-03-08.
  3. ^ "'Basaveshwara was the first free thinker of the world'". The Hindu. 2007-07-16. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2018-03-08.
  4. ^ "Vachana literature of 12th century is an asset to Indian literature | Odisha Live". Odisha Live. Retrieved 2018-03-08.
  5. ^ "Full text of "The Land Of The Lingam By Arthur Miles"". archive.org. Retrieved 2018-03-08.
  6. ^ Matlock, Gene (2000-12). India Once Ruled the Americas!. iUniverse. ISBN 9780595134687. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ Nandimath, Sivalingayya Channabasavayya (1979). A handbook of Vīraśaivism. Motilal Banarsidass.
  8. ^ "A medieval poet bedevils India's most powerful political party". The Economist. Retrieved 2018-03-08.
  9. ^ "Full text of "A Handbook Of Virasaivism Nandimath S. C. MLBD"". archive.org. Retrieved 2018-03-08.
  10. ^ Basava (1967). Śrī Basavēśvara: Eighth Centenary Commemoration Volume. Government of Mysore.
  11. ^ Reddy, K. Thimma (1994). Saivism: Origin, History & Thought : Proceedings of the Seminar on Saivism. Telugu University.
  12. ^ Virūpākṣappa, Bi (2006). Aroma of Sarana Culture. Basava Samithi.

What is wrong in this? This is not Hagiography or excessively flattering.This is well documented fact. What does Wikipedia need more to prove my lines? The United Nations approval? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavantenkale (talk • contribs) 07:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems:
  • WP:LEAD: the lead summarizes the article. This info is not in the article; you added it straight to the lead. First add it to the article, and provide a context; then consider if it's not WP:UNDUE to add this to the lead.
  • "considered by many" and "many thinkers, authors and scholars" are WP:WEASEL words.
  • You bolded First Free Thinker and Martin Luther of India; together with the above points, it gives the impression that this is WP:PUFFERY.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-inserted your additions at the appropriate place; note, though, that a warning appeared that "An automated filter has identified this edit as containing references to self published sources." So, there are more problems with your edit, and you must hav seen that warning too... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis[edit]

First Free Thinker
Martin Luther of India

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Basically, you've been doing a Google-search on Miller's statement "whatever+legends+may+say+he+was+the+first+free+thinker+of+india." It boils down to

According to Arthur Miles, Basavanna was "the First Indian Free Thinker," who "might be called the Luther of India."[1][2] echoing Nicol Macnicol who, in 1915, "equated Basava with Martin Luther."[3]

References

  1. ^ "Full text of "The Land Of The Lingam By Arthur Miles"". archive.org. Retrieved 2018-03-08.
  2. ^ "Vachana literature of 12th century is an asset to Indian literature | Odisha Live". Odisha Live. Retrieved 2018-03-08.
  3. ^ "Full text of "A Handbook Of Virasaivism Nandimath S. C. MLBD"". archive.org. Retrieved 2018-03-08.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VachanSahitya[edit]

There no detailed information about VachanSahitya, as Basavanna had written thouseds of poems/Vachna's. There is research and translation of Vachana work completed by MM Kalburgi and Basava Samiti. But I can't see information about same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.209.6 (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anubhava Mantapa[edit]

I heard lot more about Anubhava Mantapa, Narendra Modi also talking about inception of democracy in London, as the concept of democracy started 12th Century. Where is all evidences? footprints of this claim ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.209.6 (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Family of Basava[edit]

Need detailed information about Family of Basava. If he was a human being then he must have parents and siblings. Anyone has authentic information on this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.209.6 (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of places where Basava stayed[edit]

Does anyone has authentic information on list of places where Basava stayed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.209.6 (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is Basava philosophy[edit]

What is Basava philosophy?

There is no information around this topic but he has been caled as philosopher in the begining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.209.6 (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intercast marriage[edit]

Did Basava really did intercast marriage? Where is those all details? need refernces — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.209.6 (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basava founder of lingayat religion?[edit]

How come basava is a founder of lingayat religion? what driven him to create a new religion or new movement?

Basavanna Lifetime[edit]

Hello to all the editors of Wikipedia. Recently I've been reading about Bhalti movement of India and have used NCERT Books where Basavanna lifetime is shown from 1106 to 1168. Please tell me which one is correct 1106-68 or 1131-96 listed in Wikipedia, if the former is correct kindly update the page. Daze845 (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basava&oldid=1212168124"