Talk:Heliodorus pillar

Merge

Merge from Heliodorus is not nessesary as both articles potentially are quite large. Wikidās ॐ 20:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

References

This is an interesting article, but it needs references to establish its notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This article gives no mention of when the pillar was discovered.106.51.19.129 (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious change in direct quote

Not sure why there was a change in the quote from the 1983 book. Presumably the old quote was wrong or the new quote is... AnonMoos (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heliodorus pillar. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040812200836/http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/Docs/HISTORY/PRIMARYDOCS/EPIGRAPHY/HeliodorusPillar.htm to http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/docs/HISTORY/PRIMARYDOCS/EPIGRAPHY/HeliodorusPillar.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Use of offensive language in this article

In this section of the article it uses the term like cult to define the Vaishnava religion. It is highly disrespectful and offensive. We can say Islam and Christianity are cults not Vaishnava religion. So this word must be removed and instead proper word Vaishnavite religion be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.42.159.36 (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I am not sure why you think speaking about the "Vishnu-Krishna cult" should be offensive. It is actually the expression used by the academic source for the paragraph on "Problems of interpretation": p.167. And you are changing it for "Vaishnava religion" [1], which I am afraid does not mean the same thing and clearly deforms the intent of the source. Here, our personal opinions don't matter, what counts is what the sources say. Cheers पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You started heavy edits on Vaishnavism related article such as Heliodorus pillar, Vasudeva, Vaishnavism to counter the well-known evidences with less reliable and less known articles. My objections are 1) Especially, Heliodorus pillar is well-known fact about earliest evidence of western convert to Hinduism, which is acknowledged by all well-renowned Indologists both from east and west including E. Bryant, Romila Thapar, Thomas Hopkins, A. Basham, Burjor Avari. The view of Harry Falk is problemetic for two reasons. First, it just mentioned in one line towards the end of his article which was of different focus than history of Vaishnavism. Second, he did not put any justifications why Heliodorus mentioned HIMSELF as a Bhagavata, not mentioning Vasudeva as a deity or your so-called Vrishni hero. Even if I agree on his view point, its not worthy of mentioning it in the lead. Lead is supposed to be succint and only contains summary, not a paragraph dedicated to a single author for a counter-view point. They, why didnot you spend 5 more paragraphs first describing each of the five main indologists I mentioned?

2) you have started putting too much emphasis on calling Bhagavata a cult? Is not it offence to Hinduism or out-right Hinduphobic? Bhagavata Purana and Bhagavad Gita, which all talks about Bhagavan and Bhagavatas are the most prominent Smriti text of Hinduism and principal texts of Vaishnavism. Can you call Catholic church as pagan cult later adopting Jesus as a part of Trinity? or Buddism as a Sharmanic cult? This is the reason so many Hindus these days are getting angry on so-called intellectuals with western bias who wants to delegetimize every thing of Hindu origin and make it either a cult of cow, curry and caste. I understand the original Indologists of early 20th century can talk in that language with their colonial racist mind, but in todays world Hinduism is the third largest religion and Bhavata is no more a cult, rather a well-known most followed Hindu denomination of Vaishnavism. I am not saying that you should not cite them, but please stop refering it as a cult, no modern Indologists like E. Bryant, W. Doniger consider Bhagavata as a cult now, rather just the early evidence of Vaishnavism sect of Hinduism. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sanjoydey33: I am not sure I should waste my time with someone who posts repeately "Jesus was a mythical demon and a dog" and similar sentences [2][3]. These are blockable offenses, in addition to the fact that you have been deleting referenced material. Anyway... Harry Falk is one of the foremost Indologists of our time. His opinion is highly significant, and deserves mention, especially since he challenges and balances the popular notion that "Heliodorus converted to Vaishnavism". Per Wikipedia rules, we are not supposed to take side, but rather to present the various major opinions on any given subject. If we say that Heliodorus converted to Vaishnavism, we have to mention that there are significant alternative views. Regarding your second point, I don't bother about the word "cult", and again, if this is what the sources say, we have to follow them. Religion is OK as well, when the source uses this expression. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Please stop diverting the topic without giving me enough reasons. First, I was not that user who said "Jesus was a mythical demon and a dog" and similar sentences [4][5]. I always edit with my username. You cannot accuse somebody without any proper proof. Second, I am not denying the viewpoint of Harry Falk. In fact his alternative viewpoint is kept there with proper elaboration in Heliodorus_pillar#Archaeological_characteristics_and_significance section. All I was telling the lead section should be more succint. Just to respect your point, I am keeping his viewpoint in the lead section in brief, while details are given the later section. I hope that resolve the issue. If not, please follow wiki guideline of conflict resolution with proper respect and rebuttal with point by point for further discusstion here. Thanks! Sanjoydey33 (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

"Cult" has a different meaning in the academic study of religious history -- it basically just means "manner of worship"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Verifiability and OR:Synthesis

@पाटलिपुत्र: Where do you see Heliodorus in the D'Ancona paper? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't notice that you'd added the attribution to Dahlquist in the previous edit during my rollback. My bad.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Cpt: I kept Julia Shaw, in the Sanchi section. What I removed is offtopic, non-RS (theoi.com? + many para unsourced) and what looks like OR:Synthesis. Have you checked the sources? I moved the Dahlquist part to a later section, but it needs fixing. If you or someone can add RS, scrub the OR out, I will welcome the content back. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternative interpretation

Allan Dalquist book : Megasthenes and Indian Religion: A Study 
in Motives and Type is cited for alternative interpretation. In this work author seeks to establish the influence of Christianity on Krishnaism. Hence author goes after all pre-christian references to Krishna like  1. Panini's Vasudeva Sutra, 2. Megasthenes 3.Patanjali and 4.Inscriptions 5.Buddhist references.

His polemics against Heliodorus pillar inscriptions are plain wrong.(refer page 167 of the book). He claims this temple to be Buddhist Indra temple without a shred of evidence.

The book is religiously motivated and this section is best dropped if it is based on this book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.143.16 (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

G

HyuuU 205.253.126.30 (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Prakrit language

What "Central Western epigraphic Prakrit language" was used for the Brahmi script on the Heliodorus pillar? Was this Maharashtri Prakrit? Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)