Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:23, 11 May 2008

Hinduism B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I would like to add this URL which explains how the prognosis were added at a later date

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Index/B/bhavishya_purana.html

Ganesh

Muhammad

We should mention this article which claims that Muhammad was a prophesized in the Bhavishya Purana as an incarnation of a demon who would create a terrorist religion: http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism/articles/188/1/Bhavishya-Purana-The-Prediction-of-Islam/ Armyrifle 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Shaiva or Brahmic ?

Unlike Winternitz, Freda Matchett says that the Bhavishya Purana is associated with Brahma (rajasic) rather than Shiva. Buddhipriya, can you please look into this and see if it is worth mentioning ? The reference is as follows (I know you have the book):

Mathett, Freda, "Purāṇa" in Flood, Gavin (Editor) (2003). The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1-4051-3251-5. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help), pp. 137

Abecedare 05:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Both methods of classification are used. I have added the rajas version as well. Neither system is particularly useful or reliable, but we can only report the facts. Buddhipriya 06:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. For any other article I would have thought of this Rajas/Shaiva classification as unimportant trivia that can be safely left out. However since we have so little reliably sourced information (as opposed to what google throws up) on this Purana, it may be wothwhile to mention these classifications and let the reader make of they what he/she may.

The article does looks greatly improved compared to just 6 hours back. Great job! Abecedare 06:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not think to research this on Google. But now I predict that in the future we can expect some interesting edits in the future. I am visualizing the great psychic The Amazing Criswell and his ominous predictions of "future events that will affect you in the future" or something like that. Buddhipriya 06:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Refs

Hello, gatherd some Refs or External Links

http://www.vedam.org/bhavishyapurana.php?id=35

include them into article. --Prapan (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That commercial website is not a reliable reference for wikipedia, nor an appropriate external link. Abecedare (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mahāmada

the literal meaning of this name, taken as Sanskrit, is "excessively drunk, excessive or violent rut (of elephant bulls)". Is this an unintended coincidence, or a tongue-in-cheek slight on Muhammad (it is, after all, a rather fitting name for a destructive Asura). dab (𒁳) 10:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Monier-Williams has the same: next to "excessive or violent rut", he lists "great pride or intoxication". Böthlingk has, in addition: "a rutting elephant" and "fever". Aryaman (☼) 11:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The time line on the article is way off. Bhavishya purana is maybe 3000 B.C . The Mahamad part should be put up in an new article Maha Bhavishya Purana, cause in The first Bhavishya Purana says Tripurasura will be re-born in Kali Yuga and will be reincarnated as Tripurantaka after Shiva tames the soul. somebody should fix up the time line --Kapanad (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've currently semi-protected this page for 3 days, as it appears to be a target of abusive sockpuppetry (see, for instance, Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ). If needed, new users can request edits with the {{editprotected}} template. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Fix up

The way the Article mentions Muhammad is not appropiate, fix up article and removing vocabulary that could be changed into better content. --MianJi (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to explain that further, please. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The sock farm continues. Redrocket (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on the latest ANI discussion, Redrocket. I was not even aware of it till now. Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, that's actually how I was drawn over here. Well, that and being called a sockpuppet. Something that ridiculous was worth checking out. I'll help keep an eye on it in the future. Redrocket (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Mahāmada

I will have removed this section because not only is it inflammatory in content, but also it has no sources at all. If you wish to put it back, you may, but there needs to be a concrete scholarly source (I have found only sources that are non-scholarly informal Hindu devotional websites and blogs-- this is a religious text and there must be scholarly discussion), as well as a concrete date placing the text; after all, much of the Bhavishya Purana is accredited to 700-900 CE (AD), which is after Muhammad's lifespan. Mar de Sin 03:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. I just found both a scholarly source and a date, and shall re-insert the text. Mar de Sin 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You should check with your sources. If this time-line is all after Mahamad's death then explain how did Mahamad talk with Raja Bhoj and went with the kings to give offers to Shiva then Shiva claims Mahamad as Tripurasura.? --RajivLal (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• B-Class Hinduism articles
• High-importance Hinduism articles