Talk:Sattva

Please see Talk:Guna to discuss the merge proposal of Satvic into Guna.

Veer Savarkar: Rajic or Satvic?

From the article on Veer Savarkar, I wonder, didn't he in fact live the Rajic life? He was heavily involved in politics, promoting a vision of guerrilla war. He spoke out against Muslim separatism rather than promoting interfaith unity. These are more rajic activities.

What did he do that was satvic?

sonicbiology 63.163.55.1

I was encouraged to read that we could look at these three qualities, pure, dull and dark free for a moment from moral connotations; that's how the article begins. But then the rest of the piece seems heavily moral. Any resolution, opinions? (Mark Joseph (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)).

Editing question

I included a reference to the central featuring of the concept of sattva in the "Land of Hope and Glory" series by Geoffrey Wilson (article submitted for review) under the heading "In popular culture". This was deleted by User:Aoidh on the argument that this seemed promotional only. In fact, my intention was to simply draw a valid connection between this concept and its recent inclusion in a work of popular literature, which in my opinion is a valid and interesting piece of information that readers may appreciate. The "In popular culture" heading is a staple in many articles throughout Wikipedia. Are all of these promotional? If not, what makes those that are not different? All and any advice welcome. Suse999 (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that show that this book is "popular literature"? The article you submitted for review only has a few blogs reviewing the book. Did the book make appear on any bestseller charts, or anything that would indicate that it is indeed considered popular culture in any way? - Aoidh (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think our first issue is that we seem to have very different understandings of the term "popular culture". You seem to (and please do correct me if I wrong) understand the "popular" within the term simply to mean "known and appreciated by many" and you seem to measure “many” by such tools as bestseller lists. I would argue that this is a dangerously simplistic understanding of the term, as, if comprehensively applied, it would result in the exclusion of anything non-mainstream from Wikipedia. (...which fortunately is not, so far at least, the case: I am fairly certain that it would not at all be difficult to find numerous Wikipedia entries of works or creators within popular culture that never made it into any bestseller lists or were able to stand up to similar quantitative measurements.) I would, therefore, be inclined to argue against this benchmark you are trying to set. (However, of course, if you can cite Wikipedia guidelines that underpin your view and contradict mine, please do so.)

However, by bigger problem with that understanding of the term “popular culture” is that it ignores a significant discourse around the concept. While I myself, having a research interest in the field, have some significant problems with the Wikipedia article on “popular culture”, it nevertheless brings two important points across that are relevant to our discussion: 1) Popular culture is a contested concept, and 2) It can, among other interpretations, be read to mean a genre featuring specific elements such as intertextuality, self-referentiality and the breaking down of boundaries in numerous, multiple and innovative ways. My own understanding of popular culture is more akin to this latter description, in short, as a genre or particular kind of literature, film, television etc.; the most important point here being is that it should not be directly linked to the size of the audience (and, yes, this is one aspect that the Wikipedia article and I do not agree on), as often popular culture addresses highly specialised, often (and, often *by definition*) non-mainstream audiences (see, e.g., the science fiction genre). Thus, quantitative tools of measurement seem inadequate, and should be superseded by qualitative tools of measurement, such as the reception of a piece of artistic work among its intended audience.

This is where I must make an apology and acknowledge that I was using the heading “In popular culture” rather more uncritically than maybe I should have. I was simply going with what I found to be a staple heading. Given the contested nature of the concept of “popular culture”, maybe an alternative and more appropriate heading might be “In literature”, or “In Western literary fiction” or some such. I would be more than happy to compromise, although I am also happy to compromise on simply going with the staple, as, like with most contested concepts, it does not pay to avoid their use (but rather to do so extensively, to encourage discourse such as this), and it is, after all, the accepted heading across Wikipedia...

Now, for the important part: I will leave the question of whether the author Geoffrey Wilson should have a place in Wikipedia aside for now (I will, however, make a case on the talk page for that article-in-creation if you are interested...). The real question we are facing here is that of whether a reference to a (Western, popcultural) piece of literary fiction that places the concept of sattva at the centre of its narrative is a valid piece of information that would enrich this article and make a significant and/or interesting contribution to readers’ understanding of the concept. My argument is yes. ...And, with all due respect, I am not sure that anyone should judge before they have actually read those novels. You are the expert, User:Aoidh. Maybe if you read the books, you would find that the understanding of sattva as presented in the novels is limited and/or incorrect. Or maybe you will find that it is not, and that the way the concept is presented is an innovative way of bringing it to the consciousness of fiction readers in a way that serves learning and a wider appreciation of the concept, much like this Wikipedia article would attempt to do. Either way I would love to hear your thinking and judgment. And, if it goes the way of the latter, I would argue that this would then warrant inclusion of a reference to the novels in this article.Suse999 (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What's important is whether the reference is worth mentioning. Even if I were to read the book and judge it to be fantastic and very relevant, that still isn't up to me. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and that ultimately dictates content. Are there any independent sources that make this connection between this book and sattva, that warrant mentioning it in this article? If not, then it doesn't belong in this article, because it gives a disproportionate amount of focus to a topic only marginally related to this article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The guideline you link to refers to viewpoints, opinions, theories. That these novels feature sattva as a central part to their narrative is a fact. Therefore, this guideline seems not to apply. One independent source to evidence the connection is this article on Publishers Weekly (as source notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article): Publishers Weekly (2012), Review: Land of Hope and Glory, Reviewed 11 June 2012 (Retrieved 2 June 2013). Finally, I would not consider the inclusion of one short sentence that does not include anything but a simple statement on a matter of fact as introducing a "disproportionate amount of focus".Suse999 (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you believe it's relevant enough to include here is an opinion, that it is considered "popular culture" is a viewpoint, for which no reliable sources seem to exist. WP:NPOV is not a guideline, it is a core policy on Wikipedia. The brief publisher's weekly review summarizing the plot of the book would warrant mentioning Sattva on an article about the book, but that doesn't warrant including the book here without sources showing the book is a popular conception of Sattva; being part of the plot summary in a review doesn't show that. - Aoidh (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sattva and chapters 17 and 18 of the Bhagavad Gita and chapter XII of the Laws of Manu

There ought to be some references and/or discussion of sattva in relation to these in this article.202.36.254.250 (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)